Loading...One of my major goals as a professor of New Testament is to get my students to understand that the NT is not a single entity with a solid and consistent message. There are numerous authors who were writing at different times, in different parts of the world, to different audiences, and with different – sometimes strikingly different – understandings about important issues. In fact, about key issues, such as who Jesus was and what his role was in salvation.
One of the assignments that I used to give was to have students compare Matthew’s view of salvation with that found in Paul. Specifically, what is the role of doing what the Law demands and of doing good deeds? If someone abides by the law and does good deeds for others – will that bring about salvation?
The way I get them to think about those questions is by looking at two passages, one in Matthew and the other in Paul. The first is Matthew’s version of the “rich young ruler” (he’s actually not a “young ruler” in any of the Gospel accounts; in one he’s young and in another he’s a ruler: but that’s just what the passage is typically called). According to this passage, how does one receive eternal life? Here’s the passage.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. If you don’t belong, JOIN, WILL YA????
Doesn’t Paul say that belief in jesus resurection replaces the law? So the rules got changed when jesus died and rose.
Well, it’s not exactly what he says. But you can get a sense of his views by reading Galatians.
Paul still had a view even after the resurrection of Christ that one could not live a sinful life style and be saved, that is very much Paul’s point in Galatians five…… through many of his letters you see this thread of works being shown in the life of a “True Believer” I do not think the commandments are done away with completely…. even the idea of one not being able to lose their “salvation” is not derived from scripture itself but from a branch of reformed Calvinist who are afraid to think otherwise.
You compare two very different views of the way to “salvation”… that of Jesus and that of Paul…that of following the commandments (the Law) and even going far beyond them to perfection, and Paul’s view of justification by faith alone.
Yet, as you mentioned, Matthew also advocates the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, as do others in the New Testament which to me seems to be an add-on.
That in itself seems to be a major contradiction.
(personally I am put off by the notion that a Loving God would require the blood of His Son to be shed as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of all humankind and I have problems dealing with this theologically)
Question: Sometime would you address the issue of how the doctrine of the Atonement became such a prominent fixture in the New Testament while it seems that Jesus is presenting a different message?
Yup, I can try!
Oh I absolutely second that request!
I believe since Paul is writing first, it seems he is preaching a totally different message than the Jerusalem apostles. I see polemics all through Paul’s writings directed towards mostly the Jerusalem Christians. Each sect was bringing a different gospel to the table, but Paul’s gospel won simply because, (1) following the law was too Jewish, (2) Constantine adhered to the gospel of Paul, (3) after the destruction of the temple at around 70 CE the Jerusalem Christians were forced underground which left Paul’s gospel to flourish in the gentile countries. I do not think that Paul was much of a fan of “midrash” which I am convinced that that is what the gospel’s mostly are, especially the book of Matthew. The above mentioned story did not probably even happen historically. Matthew is full of individual attestations. and since I do not believe in an “unknown” document called the “Q-source” I adhere to the very “Jewish” explanation called, midrash.
*by unknown I mean non-existent
Oops, correction, there is an account of this story in Luke, but I notice he (Luke) seems to be following Matthew word for word as if he (Luke) had Matthew before him as he was writing. I believe that Matthew was very aware of the writings of Paul so he put this story in Jesus’ mouth as a polemical response to Paul’s writings. So if he did put these words into Jesus’ mouth, would that not be considered midrash? He is either using another source “Q” or midrashing. Sorry for blowing up your blog Bart.
I would think that the only honest answer ( as opposed to rhetorical gymnastics attempting , for ” apologetic ” purposes , to reconcile the irreconcilable ) would be that Christianity has a very large tent and that the Deed vs Creed issue has been around for a very long time . Our hypothetical young rich man obviously had enormous respect for the person of Jesus likely originating in direct observation or he would not have posed the question to him in the first place . Whether he would have had similar respect for an itinerant tent maker who had received this crucial information in a series of strictly private visions post Crucifixion would be , I submit , rather doubtful . An even sharper contrast could be drawn between the Epistle of St James and Galatians . James would appear to be saying that Creed absent a whole boatload of daily Deed equals self delusion .
Mmm, I really like that phrase “Deed vs Creed” as well as the big tent idea. Thank you for mentioning that.
It is a good exercise. I would add the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew which also emphasizes works rather than faith. So, my vote is that the two views are not reconcilable. Personally, I think all too often emphasis on faith allows the believer to escape the hard work of having to critically examine crucial questions and just believe. When there are discrepancies, statements by Jesus override statements by Paul.
…really enjoying this series on Matthew!
I think the Evangelicals reconcile the two views by saying that Jesus was demonstrating just how difficult it would be to gain salvation by works alone. Therefore, Paul’s vision is the only path to salvation that people can realistically take.
But isn’t there yet another level of tension here? Was this really Jesus’s view of the path to salvation? Or was it Matthew’s? Paul, after all, wrote his letters long before Matthew wrote his gospel. One might well assume that Paul’s view of the path too eternal life better reflected Jesus’s view based on their relative chronological proximity. Unless, of course, Paul’s view represented an entirely different strand of Christian thought than Jesus’s did.
Is there any evidence in Mathew, Mark and John that these authors knew about Paul? I know Luke writes extensively about Paul (and gets much of him wrong) but what about the other Gospel writers?
The strongest case has been for Mark. The odd thing about Luke is that Paul is his hero, and yet he appears to have a different view of Jesus’ death and its effect from Paul. Maybe I’ll post on that….
You already have posted on Luke’s view and it was an excellent post!
The views of Paul and Jesus with respect to the Torah are completely at odds, it seems. It’s a wonder that more Christians don’t recognize this. Best to not examine too closely, I suppose.
In the judgment stories in Matthew, I don’t see people being judged on whether or not they kept the law.
Dr. Ehrman,
Thanks for another thought provoking post! It sparked a two-sided question in my mind that’s sort of related to the salvation issue.
First, do you think, if we were able to ask Paul, “can a Christian lose their salvation?” (become “unjustified”, etc..) by choosing to walk away from the faith, what do you think Paul would say? And second, why do you think none of the New Testament authors specifically address such an important question in non-ambiguous terms?
Paul: yes. Other NT writers: I think Heb. 6:4-6 (and 10:26-27) are pretty non-ambiguous!
Paul taught people could lose their faith including himself, in first Corinthians nine at the very end Paul says “lest I myself become disqualified from the race” The last time I seen a race in our day and age or any-given sport for that matter. People become “disqualified’ thats it, over, done, Now that would be some of Ehrmans points in his book “Forged” that some of the letters claiming to be written by Paul were actually not. why? well because when you read romans or the seven undisputed letters they’re written from the perspective of salvation as being future-ally not presently..
Read the letters Colossians or Ephesians the author (Paul) claims that salvation is a present reality (now) where as read Phil 3 , Paul says he has not attained “a resurrection from the dead” but is hoping he makes it to that glorified day. NT Scholars have tried to harmonize this tension calling the “already but not yet” view…… interesting stuff man.
Bart, it seems like these are not the only instances where the NT texts offer different views on what’s necessary for salvation … ? One other such example would be Matthew 25:31-46 where it seems that those who ‘simply’ have been compassionate and who have helped other people will be saved and allow entry into the Kingdom? No talk there about having to be ‘born again’, to accept Jesus as your ‘Lord and Savior’, etc?
The “saved” there not only don’t *believe* in Jesus; they’ve never even *heard* of him.
Don’t students presented with this conundrum just respond by saying something about the rules being different before and after the resurrection? I’ve heard that often enough to know when it’s been drummed into a population by repetition.
Yes, but that’s the point. If one could be saved before Jesus came by being good, why did Jesus need to come at all?
It can be quite amusing to hear evangelical apologists and pastors try to reconcile the contradictory plans of salvation found in the New Testament.
Bart, I know this is off the subject, but have you figured out how you will continue blogging while teaching? You go back to teaching next month, right? Just curious.
As the politicians say, I’m cautiously optomistic….
Hmm. It could be argued that what Paul calls “faith in Jesus Christ” necessarily includes accepting everything Jesus taught. So “following the Law” would be meaningless in itself – if one had come to it by another route, such as conversion to Judaism – but is required of a follower of Christ, solely because he’d endorsed it.
Of course, Paul may not have believed that actually was a teaching of Jesus! The statements above, taken alone, can be reconciled; but that might not be true of the totality of Paul’s and “Matthew’s” beliefs.
But now I realize there’s another problem: Jesus seems to be saying salvation is possible *without* faith in *him*. I don’t see how Paul could get around that. He’d probably deny that Jesus could ever have said it.
Thank you for pointing this out! This was the crux of my question a few posts back, about what the *point* of the Law was for Matthew’s Jesus, if it is Jesus that saves not the Law. I see now that I’ve been guilty of putting a Pauline reading onto Matthew, and not letting the tensions that are there between the two exist. I appreciate the intellectual honesty this blog, and your work in general, holds me to. While I’ve remained a practicing and believeing Christian during this journey, I definitely am not the same kind of Christian I once was. Thank you.
This also occurred to me a while back, and it began a long process of re-assessing Paul. I think they are clearly in conflict with one another and cannot be reconciled, despite how modern Christianity tries to do so – by ignoring Jesus’ words entirely!
I am very grateful for your work. I was born into a Catholic family, then my mother “found Jesus” when I was in my teens. We left the Catholic Church, church-hopped, then ended up in a fundie Baptist church. I went to bible college, did the whole church thing for my kids, blah blah. They’re grown, life moves on, and voila, information! I am obsessed, devouring as much as I can about the origins of the Christian faith. Thanks for sharing what you’ve learned. I’ve always questioned everything, and now I feel like I have some answers. Wonderful!
But what if the Gospel of Matthew was written as a historical narrative ( which obviously it is) that was just explaining who This risen Jesus was prior to Pauline Theology. It would seem at the preaching of the kingdom of God by John the baptizer as well Jesus that to enter the kingdom in their time was repenting (changing their minds about who Jesus was, centering their lives around him, as Josephus mentions in his histories) That Jesus was re-Centering the cosmos around God and Him, including the law at that time period. Maybe its not so much a problem if you think about Matthew (which you claim did not actually write the gospel) being honest with the data that he had received from the community of believers around him.
Putting Jesus in His context is key, so I do not see it as a difference in Theology, but more as a Historical narrative explaining Jesus prior to His death and resurrection. Also I am glad that Matthew did not change Jesus to fit the aftermath of what the resurrection would have entailed. Why? because it seems like Jesus being a jew would never have said “the hell with the law” but more so re-interpeting around Himself as well the Kingdom’s intentional mission in Jesus’ own life time.
For me I do not see Paul saying that works are completely out of the way and done away with, in his letter written to the Galatians Paul says that even those who “practice evil” will not enter the kingdom of God…. which to some degree (making an exception to the sabbath, because Jesus was the reason we could rest) would be adhering to the commandments. why would they not keep most of the levitical law? we’ll because Jesus was the sacrifice and propitiation for the sins of the world ( according to the christian community) the other dietary laws and clothing laws, In my opinion were written and given to make the Jews distinct at that time as a people ( Just like any worldview today seeking distinction)
The Law still stands in the community as far as ethics and morality are concerned……. Paul would have never thought it was okay to be a heathen or endorsed sinful living ( first corinthians the man sleeping with his own mother, Yikes!!) The death of Jesus is what made it possible for people to enter in the covenant with God, but that does not mean ethics in the Pauline Gospel are somehow thrown away. Now understanding why Matthew would have said if you want to enter “eternal Life” keep the commandments…. maybe Jesus was showing him many things, there are many different perspectives given on this, Than you listed….
some would argue Jesus is showing the young man that he is “greedy” “covetous” which is braking the commandments….. Some would say Jesus was showing the young man that its impossible to keep the commandments perfectly apart from the Spirit of God. Maybe even at that time prior to Jesus’ death and resurrection & ascension it was keeping the law in order to be right… Many things, Jesus was teacher and also very Jewish, Which the Jews (I am one by birth myself) are very good at story telling and being great challengers and interpreters. I would not be surprised to find out that a-lot of the difficult stories and things we do not understand turn out to be Jesus’ ways of being sarcastic and witty.
Have to ask a couple more questions based on your “controversies” discs!
In the discussion about Mary Magdalene, you mention – as its really having nothing to do with her – the “let him who is sinless cast the first stone” story. As I’ve understood it, that doesn’t appear in any Gospel manuscript older than the 10th century. You say Pope Gregory the Great wrote about it in the 6th century. Just to clarify: Have scholars known all along that it was part of Christian lore, somehow, since at least the 6th century? That it might have been in a lost ms. of the Gospel where it appears now, or in some other writings that didn’t make it into the canon?
And after speculating that what Judas betrayed was that Jesus privately referred to himself as King of the Jews (a punishable crime), you seem to indicate he could also have been crucified for calling himself the Messiah. But…weren’t there different ideas of what the “Messiah” (the “anointed one”) might be – possibly just a religious leader? Would the Romans have viewed any self-proclaimed “Messiah” as a threat?
1. No, it is in Greek manuscripts as early as the fifth century.
2. Different Jews had different views of what hte messiah was. But Jesus called himself King, and that was a political offense.
Take a break Bart..I will understand:)
I don’t think Paul’s concept of salvation was based on confession of a creed. It was based on mystical communion with God through the person of Christ. We become adopted sons through devotion/ not confession. Works are not the cause of salvation/ they are the manifestation of salvation. At the same time/ Paul and Matthew clearly disagree on whether one has to keep the Jewish law. I think theologically you have to conclude that Jesus/ given his sinless but human limitations/ did not understand the fullness of his mission. I think historically you have to conclude that Paul and not Jesus was the actual founder of the religion of Christianity (in contrast to a Jewish sect).
I will go against the grain and say they can be reconciled. Faith and love are essentials for both writers (and everywhere else in the NT).
Note that, in the end, the young man in Matthew does not seem to have attained the perfection that Jesus counseled so keeping the commandments alone was not really what the author had in mind. On the other hand, depending upon whether one understands Saul of Tarsus to be Jewish or Lutheran, one can find much in Paul that Matthew would agree with. Reading a subjective genitive in Paul, ie, focusing on faith being inspired by Jesus’ own faith and faithfulness, allows us to go one step further in recognizing the Jewish character of Paul’s thought. Not that he and Matthew weren’t very different, of course they were, but Matthew was not Cardinal Cajetan and Paul was not Martin Luther.
Paul and Jesus do not see eye to eye …
1. On the time of the coming of the Lord:
Paul says:
Rom.13
[12] the night is far gone, the day is at hand.
Jesus says:
Luke.21
[8] Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name,
saying, . . . `The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.
2. On the source of the Truth and the true gospel:
Paul says:
1Cor.2
[13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.
Gal.1
[12] For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Jesus says:
John.17
[14] I have given them thy word;
[17] Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
3. On the God of the dead:
Paul says:
Rom.14
[9] For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Jesus says:
Luke.20
[38] Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living;
4. On the sum of the commandments:
Paul says:
Rom.13
[9] The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Jesus says:
Matt.22
[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.
5. On whom God has mercy:
Paul says:
Rom.9
[15] For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
[16] So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy.
[18] So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.
Jesus says:
Matt.5
[7] Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
6. On forgiveness of trespasses:
Paul says:
Eph.1
[7] In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace
Rom.4
[25] who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Jesus says:
Matt.6
[14] For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you;
[15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
7. On being justified:
Paul says:
Rom.3
[24] they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
[28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Rom.5
[9] Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Jesus says:
Matt.12
[37] for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
8. On the cost of eternal life:
Paul says:
Rom.6
[23] For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Jesus says:
Matt.19
[29] And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.
Luke.14
[28] For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?
[33] So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.
9. On what is honorable among men:
Paul says:
2Cor.8
[21] for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of men.
Rom.12
[17] Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all men.
Rom.14
[18] he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
1Cor.10
[33] just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
Jesus says:
Luke.16
[15] But he said to them, You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Luke.6
[26] Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.
10. On Dying:
Paul says:
I Corinthians 15
31: I protest, brethren, by my pride in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day!
Jesus says:
John 11
26: and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die.
11. On the basis of judgment:
Paul says:
Rom.2
[12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
Jesus says:
John.12
[48] He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.
12. On the commandments and eternal life:
Paul says:
Rom.7
[9] I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died;
[10] the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me.
Jesus says:
Matt.19
[17] And he said to him, Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.
13. On your father:
Paul says:
1Cor.4
[15] For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Phlm.1
[10] I appeal to you for my child, Ones’imus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment.
Jesus says:
Matt.23
[9] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven
14. On qualifying for eternal life:
Paul says:
Rom.5
[21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Jesus says:
John.5
[24] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
15. On the destiny of the creation (heavens and earth):
Paul says:
Rom.8
[21] because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Jesus says:
Matt.24
[35] Heaven and earth will pass away,
16. On the destiny of the Law and the Prophets:
Paul says:
Rom.10
[4] For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.
Jesus says:
Matt.5
[17] Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
17. On the number and identity of teachers:
Paul says:
1Cor.12
[28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third, teachers,
Eph.4
[11] And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
1Tim.2
[7] For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
2Tim.1
[11] For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,
Jesus says:
Matt.23
[8] But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.
18. On the number to be saved:
Paul says:
Rom.11
[25] Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in,
[26] and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.
Jesus says:
Matt.7
[13] Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
[14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
19. On the number and identity of pastors (shepherds):
Paul says:
Eph.4
[11] And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors (shepherds) and teachers,
Jesus says:
John.10
[16] And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.
20. On the number and identity of leaders:
Paul says:
1Cor.4
[15] For though you have countless leaders in Christ . . ..
Jesus says:
Matt.23
[10] Neither be called leaders, for you have one leader, the Christ.
21: On total depravity:
Paul says:
Rom.3
[9] What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin,
[10] as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;
[22] For there is no distinction;
[23] since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, . . ..
Jesus says:
Matt.12
[35] The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.
Luke.6
[45] The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
Matt.23
[35] that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari’ah the son of Barachi’ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
22. On unconditional election:
Paul says:
Rom.9
[16] So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy.
Jesus says:
Matt.7
[21] Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
[22] On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ [23] And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.
23. On sacrifices to God:
Paul says:
1Cor.5
[7] For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.
Eph.5
[2] And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Jesus says:
Matt.9
[13] Go and learn what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’
24. On remuneration for preaching the gospel:
Paul says:
1Tim.5
[17] Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;
[18] for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.
1Cor.9
[11] If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits?
[12] If others share this rightful claim upon you, do not we still more?
Jesus says:
Matt.10
[7] And preach as you go, saying, `The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’
[8] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying, give without pay.
25. On how one becomes a child of God:
Paul says:
Rom.8
[23] and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Gal.4
[5] to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Jesus says:
John.3
[3] Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is begotten from above,* he cannot see the kingdom of God.
[6] That which is begotten of the flesh is flesh, and that which is begotten of the Spirit is spirit.
[7] Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be begotten from above.*
* John 3:3 and 3:7 differ from the RSV only in the expression “begotten from above” that replaces “born anew’ in the RSV. “Born anew” does not represent the fullness of what Jesus is stating here, and does not correspond to the literal translation of the Greek.
Mjeffery, your post does not make any sense on how Jesus and Paul contradict one another…. sorry man vey confusing.
The way i will answer this question is: The book of Matthew is not a reliable source therefore I don’t believe that Jesus said what the author of this book records that He said. Just like I don’t believe Matthew’s record, that Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah; because it contradicts what John states; That John the Baptist was not Elijah. So whose right about Elijah? John or Matthew? Would John the Baptist contradict Jesus? Or vice versa? Paul is for sure a more reliable source than Matthew.
Matthew 11:14“And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.
John 1:21-They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not.
Interesting point. Just one thing to note, though: the Gospel of John is not allegedly by John the Baptist but by John the Son of Zebedee. (And in reality, it wasn’t written by either one.)
Thank you for your reply. I meant that John the son of Zebedee recorded in his Gospel That John the Baptist was not Elijah”. As for who wrote the Gospel of John; I’ve always thought that it was written by the same author of 1 John. But more importantly this Gospel was written by an eyewitness of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. This is clearly stated at the beginning of the first chapter of John.
John 1:14-And the Word became flesh, and DWELT AMONG US, and WE SAW His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
NOTE: This writer testifies that “The word” DWELT among US and that he along with others SAW Jesus
glory.
The most common view today is that the Gospel of John is by a *different* author from the author of 1 John, but someone from the same community (living earlier). And “dwelt among us” is usually taken to mean “dwelt among humans” rather than “with me and my companions.”
Thank you for your reply. What about the latter part of John 1:14, “we saw his glory” Is this not the same individual of john 19:35?
John 19:35-And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.
Who is this person who has seen and testified? And what has he seen?
John 19:34 answers this question.The context here is that this individual witnessed Jesus being pierced on his side and immediately blood and water came out.
John 19:34-But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
According to John the only disciple at the foot of the cross who could have witnessed this is the disciple whom Jesus loved.
John 19:25-Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26-When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
So who was this disciple whom Jesus loved? Wasn’t he John who later became the Apostle John? And If John himself did not write the gospel of john then whoever wrote it had to have john’s eyewitness testimony. For the writer was writing the story told by “he who has seen”
The person writing 19:35 explicitly indicates that he is not the eyewitness who has seen these things. “He” (another person) saw these things and “we” know they are true.
The person writing 19:35 explicitly indicates that he is not the eyewitness who has seen these things. “He” (another person) saw these things and “we” know they are true…
The person who is writing 19:35 explicitly indicates that he is not the eyewitness who has seen these things. “He” (another person) saw these things and “we” know they are true…
I’ll agree that someone else other than the eyewitness in John 19:35 wrote John. However I do believe, that according to the same verse: John 19:35, the eyewitness was the disciple whom Jesus loved. It was this disciple who related the account to this person who wrote it down.
I believe this because the writer notes in John 19:35 that this person whom he refers to as “he”, was a witness and had testified to what he saw.
Please also consider that before the writer states this fact, (that this person was a witness and had testified of what he saw) he introduces the account of “the soldiers piercing Jesus side with a spear, and recalls that immediately blood and water came out” in John 19:34.
I believe the only one who could’ve known the details mentioned in John 19:32-34 is the disciple at the foot of the cross. The disciple whom Jesus loved. The one whom the writer himself witnessed: “that he has seen has testified, and his testimony is true” This disciple, I’m assuming it’s John the son of Zebedee, the disciple who witnessed the crucifixion and all the other details of what happened there to Jesus.
So I personally believe, regardless of the difficulties, that this account in John is reliable.
The bible contains plenty of contradictions, but I don’t see any contradiction between Jesus and Paul concerning salvation. According to bible doctrine, one sin reaps the death penalty, so there is the reason for the atoning sacrifice. However, that doesn’t mean a person can willfully practice evil and receive eternal life. Serving a prison sentence for a transgression doesn’t then allow a person to go back to transgressing once freed.
Salvation is through grace, because no amount of obedience or works can undo disobedience, but forgiveness is not deserved toward those who don’t turn from their ugly ways.
Paul said that the law is holy, just, and good and that one must keep/serve the law of God rather than the law of sin.
Speaking of “eyes”, some scholars have indicated that Apostle Paul had an eye problem or disease. In his writings, he mentions a thorn in the eyes that the devil caused, he speaks on writing large letters in Galatian’s and there are other references. Do you think Paul had an eye problem? I’m not sure if you’ve heard of these arguments.
There’s also the account of him being blinded in Acts 9, which is also used. I don’t really know if that’s the thorn in the flesh or not; there are lots of other options (popular these days: epilepsy; virtually uncontrollable sex drive; homosexual tendencies; etc.). As to him having eye problems: it’s plausible, or it may simply be he can’t write very well.
Do you think him being “blinded” when he saw Jesus is historical? Many researchers use the Acts account to attribute multiple mental illnesses to Paul.
No, I don’t. I”m just saying it’s a passage people sometimes appeal to.