H
hermit
Guest
Recently I have come across posts in different religious forums that say Paul preached the gospel about Jesus not the gospel of Jesus. There seems to be a lot of support for this point of view especially among women.
- Status
P
piety101
Guest
In a way that is very true. The gospel Paul preached concerned the death, the burial and the resurrection of Jesus. While Jesus could not have preached that gospel, for his message was far different before his crucifixion. Our Lord’s gospel at that time, was about the Kingdom of God or heaven. He taught not so much what it was, but the kind of people that would be allowed to enter into it.
Code:
But AFTER Jesus' resurrection, he instructed his apostles to preach the good news that he had died and was raised from the dead and to preach remission of sins, beginning at Jerusalem. We know this to be true, by a reading of Peter's first sermon in Acts chapter 2 to the Jews assembled for the feast of Pentecost.
When Paul was called later to be a missionary he was also given instruction what to preach to the gentiles. It was the same gospel, our resurrected Lord gave to his disciples after his resurrection.
F
FuzzyBunny116
Guest
Remember, also, that there are many teachings of Jesus not recorded, according to the end of John. I imagine Paul was preaching some of those, too.
E
Elliott
Guest
What’s the difference between the good news of Jesus and the good news about Jesus?
D
deb1
Guest
I wondered this also, and as a woman, I wonder why this would appeal to women?
J
javelin
Guest
Without knowing what exactly their points are, I would hazard a guess that they are claiming that what Paul taught, even though it was about Jesus, was not faithful to what Jesus himself taught.
Just like if you were to ask me about my wife, I would probably start by telling you basic facts about her (describing her), and other things that are by nature my interpretation or what I thought about her. If you were to ask her to tell you what she thought, they may be two very different things.
The point being that Paul literally tells us about Jeus, from a third-person point of view, and does not simply re-state the teachings of Jesus Himself.
Thus could be postulated the seeming contradictions between the gospel messages of Jesus and the letters of Paul. I imagine, too, that these same people would say that they will listen to what they think Jesus taught, and not what they think Paul taught.
The main problem with the perspective is that it does not treat all of Scripture as the word of God. From this True perspective, all of Scripture, whether we read it from the gospel writers or Paul or Peter, is really the teachings of God Himself (not Paul, Jesus (except that He IS God), or any other author), so none of it can contradict, nor can we selectively attempt to apply it to our lives.
Peace,
javelin
J
javelin
Guest
Again, I am only guessing, but I imagine it has to do with certain statements of Paul’s regarding women, such as his stuff about being submissive to husbands and wearing headcoverings and such.
Peace,
javelin
J
John_Henry
Guest
I imagine the argument is something like, Jesus was open to women. Paul wasn’t. But one needs to remember that Paul’s writings precede the writings of the gospels. For instance, Luke’s Gospel is traditionally associated with Paul, because Luke travelled with Paul. Thus it seems obvious that the early Christians, who were familiar with Paul and his teaching, would have rejected the later-written gospels if they had felt there to be some tension between them. But they didn’t because there wasn’t. And isn’t.
P
piety101
Guest
You misunderstand Paul’s view of women. Paul did not dislike women at all. But Paul wrote under the authority of God that women had a PLACE in the church and in the home. What Paul wrote, is what God approved. A great many people do not understand so disagree with Paul.Especially in our modern feminists society.
- Status