Why Paul contridicts Jesus

It is so very easy to pull disjointed and unrelated verses out of context and make the claims made here. You of course are free to believe the above, as I am free to believe you are sadly in error in your belief.

But hey, that is what makes for great discussion. Oh, and btw, welcome to A2K.

I am sorry you think me wrong
yet i can proof i am not can you do the same?

The line "Is Saul among the prophets?" is a polemic against Saul, who according to the text is the first king of Israel. It is good, when challenging a preconcieved notion about a text, not to take things out of their context, and if taking them out of their assumed meaning, to show that the text itself actually meant something different than what it would naturally mean.

That's just what I had to say about that line. I'm sure you'll find some people who agree with you and some who disagree.

Dauer

Edit: by the way, Welcome to A2K!

Makes no sense for me to offer proof to you just as it makes no sense for you to try to prove your view to me. Neither of us will change. The only proof I would accept would be to see the Biblical references in context upon which you draw your conclusions. Do the verses you base your thoughts on mean the same when viewed in the context of the entire passage? I don't think so.

Most do
Some i have used in the way they where meant, yet there are some that may be debatable
Yet from the scriptures on my site it is possible to see that there is clear contridiction in the teachings of christ when compared with the teachings of Paul
I agree i should have pointed out that the Saul bit came from in the old testament
Yet at the time it was made a proverb meaning that it stands as a saying through time

context context context.

in 1 Sam 10:9-13 Saul gets taken by the spirit of God and he speaks in ecstacy with the prophets. This is after Sam annointed him and said this would happen. It's shown to be a positive thing. Because of this, there is a proverb: "Is Saul, too, among the prophets?"

But there is a polemic later in the text. Sam 19:18-24. Saul sends people after David, but then they see a band of prophets and start speaking in ecstasy. Then Saul's messengers start speaking in ecstasy. Then Saul sends two more groups of messengers, and each group starts speaking in ecstasy. Then Saul goes, and on his way he starts speaking in ecstasy and he keeps going. Then he takes off his clothes and talks in ecstasy in fron of Samuel. Then he lays naked all day and night. And it says:

This is why people say, "Is Saul too among the prophets?"


The first part was most likely written by Saul's scribes and it paints him positively. The second part, written by either David's or Solomon's scribes, mocks Saul and makes him look like a fool.

The first time is saying, "This is why Saul is called a prophet." And the second time is a polemic saying, "No no no. This is why Saul is called a prophet."

Dauer

Excuse me sir...

Your ignorant blurting really is something that has no value....

you miss read the entire context of the scriptures you placed down....so I will add the response to your statement later, right now I am busy but wait and you will see.....I will analyse it and retort...

"Jesus said to her, "Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." [John 20:17]

Jesus says I am going Straight to God. Where does it say he is making a detour to Paul? Every action is told to the Disciples, why not tell them of his return to 'Paul'? Why did Jesus leave out a Major event like going to 'Paul' who wrote about 70% of the Gospel. Don't you think a event that effected 70% of the current Gospel would be foretold? Did Jesus ever say 'these are my 12 disciples and one to come?




For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. [1 Corinthians 11:23-25]

This was written about 20 years after Jesus departure. Paul in one of his hallucination pretended that Jesus gave him the Eucharist (eating Jesus body and drinking his blood) and he was ordered to deliver it to Christians.

However the church was already celebrating Eucharist since Jesus departure. Jesus taught his disciples Eucharist the night of his arrest:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. [Matthew 26:26-28]
(Notice that in Matthew it's bread then wine, while in Luke 22:17-19 it's wine then bread).

Was Paul confused??? The church was already celebrating Eucharist, so why would Jesus appear and tell him to deliver Eucharist???
You want to know why?
Paul didn't get Eucharist from Jesus nor did he invent it, Paul just borrowed it from Mithraism. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected.
Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

Like dreams, visions or hallucinations do not come from nowhere, but reveal what is already in a person's subconscious. Paul theology is found in Mithraism. That we find Jesus at the Last Supper saying the same thing Paul said to the Corinthians many years later is another example of the church modifying the gospels to incorporate the theology of Paul, which eventually won out over the theology of Jesus' original disciples.


Bishop John S. Spong:
"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."
(Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991).

George Bernard Shaw:
"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."

Thomas Jefferson:
"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."

Thomas Hardy :
"The new testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."

Well, I'm sure many of us wouldn't find it too hard to believe that the bible isn't 100% correct.