2 skeptic questions - Paul and Jesus "contradict"

[nwink]

I have been interacting a little with a skeptic recently, and he asked a couple questions I wanted to see if someone could provide some thoughts about. He basically was saying that Paul and Christ contradict, and I'm working on debunking what he says. But on these two questions listed below, what do you think would be the best way to respond? Also, do you have any suggestions of works or articles debunking general claims that Jesus and Paul contradict? Thanks for your help.


Skeptic: "On your father: Jesus says: Matt.23 v.9] Do not call any man on earth your father, for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Paul says: 1Cor.4 v.15 For though you have countless tutors in Christ, you have only one father. For I became your father in Christ Jesus, you are my offspring, and mine alone through the preaching of the gospel. Phlm.1 v.10 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in this prison."

Skeptic: "On the destiny of the creation (heavens and earth): Jesus says: Matt.24 v.35 Heaven and earth will pass away,
Paul says: Rom.8 v.21 because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage of mortality and obtain the liberty and splendor of the children of God."


One further question: how would it be best to respond to the claim that Jesus didn't teach original sin?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

First, one could look in Paul's corpus for the places where he agrees with and confirms Christ's doctrine.

Establish that, and then ask the question whether it is likely that Paul so soon contradicts himself in another place (the alleged contradiction), or whether the different contexts and audiences to which the men are speaking, and the particular points at issue, constrain the interpretation.

It is uncharitable to choose a tendential reading, one that only serves to confirm the bias of the reader.

So, on the matter of calling a man "father," what is Jesus' intent in making the statement? We know first of all that he does NOT mean that we should never use the term. On multiple occasions, Jesus uses the descriptor "father" to speak of human progenitors. So obviously, he's not against identifying some men as fathers. It's ridiculous to make him out to be stating a universal prohibition. That's a nonsensical interpretation of Jesus himself.

We usually identify Jesus' expression, Mt.23:9, as a figure of speech, at minimum a mild hyperbole. Christ is condemning "that itch for ecclesiastical superiority which has been the bane and the scandal of Christ’s ministers in every age" (David Brown's The Four Gospels). Calvin on the place:

The true meaning therefore is, that the honor of a father is falsely ascribed to men, when it obscures the glory of God. Now this is done, whenever a mortal man, viewed apart from God, is accounted a father, since all the degrees of relationship depend on God alone through Christ, and are held together in such a manner that, strictly speaking, God alone is the Father of all.

Seen in this light, Jesus meaning is contextually rich. Jesus has a point, one which he thinks his hearer (and reader) is capable of comprehending.

The mistake too often made by the not-so-curious skeptic is that he thinks of Jesus as a spewer of proverbs, a mystic of a Far-Eastern bent, uninterested in coherence but in koan-like statements filled with mysteries and paradoxes. Into these can be drawn multiple, even contradictory meanings so that the sage appears wise and wonderful. Meanwhile ordinary mortals are expected to surrender their own minds to the will of the guru.

The skeptic then pits Paul against Jesus, the "rational, Greek logician" against the charismatic, enigmatic, but ultimately provincial Jewish mystic with a martyr complex.

 

[Eoghan]

Context dictates meaning. There is a proverb which says do not answer a fool according to his folly and another which says answer a fool according to his folly. To have them in the same book might be considered an embarrassment but to have them in the same chapter a contradiction. They are however in succeeding verses Pr 26:4-5 so the author obviously considers them two sides of the same coin.

The clue is the context and found in the second part of the verses Pr26:4b and 26:5b. The lesson is that apparent contradictions should make us examine the context closely. Sadly the literary and theology of our day are often simply not up to the task.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

For the term "father" and "rabbi" the obvious context was for those who use the term because they crave the opinions and accolades of men. Paul on the other hand often bore his weaknesses openly to the public (2 Corinthians 12:7-10 , 1 tim. 1:15) so as to show he was not one of these men craving the accolades of men, but it is true that he spiritually birthed them as it was he (by the Holy Spirit) that brought the message to them, nurtured and discipled them. Even when Paul boasts about himself, his pedigrees and his suffering he starts out this way

16 Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, so that I also may boast a little. 17 What I am saying, I am not saying [f]as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. 18 Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. 19 For you, being so wise, tolerate the foolish gladly. 20 For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, anyone devours you, anyone takes advantage of you, anyone exalts himself, anyone hits you in the face. 21 To my shame I must say that we have been weak by comparison.

Paul was always concerned with being a fool for Christ (1 Cor 1) over and above being well liked in the world's eyes.

Above creation passing away Peter says it will in 2 Peter 3:10 and so does Revelation 20:11. We will be renewed and glorified completely but it isn't until after physical death, all creation is the same way.

About original sin, show him Ephesians 2:3, Psalm 51:5 and Romans 5 & 1 cor 15:22. Stress Jesus wrote the bible, if need be stress that for Ps 51:5. But then take him to Luke 11:13, Luke 13:1~9, John 8:40~47, It is my current opinion that when Jesus says "you must be born of water and of spirit" he is saying that you were born into this earth by water, amniotic fluid which is of Adam and of sin and cannot be saved unless you are also be born of the Spirit (side note angels aren't born of water so hence why the fallen ones cannot claim Jesus as their savior according to Heb 2:16 & 2 Pe 2:4). If you look at John 3 and think about it if you need to be "born from above" to be saved and you cannot see the kingdom or recognize it, it is foolishness to you until you are born again then what is the necessity of a second birth (spiritual) if you physical birth isn't tarnished, i.e. born into sin? The nail in the coffin is probably Matthew 15:18, 19 by Jesus' own words. Hope that helps a little.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

Let me add too if he continues to put God on trial, i.e. attack the faith, in his hardheartedness (vs. really wanting answers) you need to address him with presuppositional apologetics, if this is the case just ask and i'm more than willing to point you toward some resources on this.