Is Saint Paul more authoritative than the Gospels?

[Brian2]

I am sorry, but I disagree with this statement. The Gospels are so important that an entire Church is called evangelical after the Gospels.
This episode where you can see Jesus Christ's love towards the Gentiles show that the Gospel does mention that Christianity is for both Jews and Gentiles.

In the four Gospels you can find nothing but Love.

Gotta Tell Somebody by Don Francisco videos

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not sure that statement really can be said. Perhaps it depends on the context?

In separation from God, yes, all sins are equal in the sense that all sins separate us from God.. But does Paul say all sins are equal?

1 Corinthians 6:18
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

In reading this scripture, it would appear he is saying there is more gravity in one than the other.

I think that one of the most fundamental pillars of Catholic hamartiology is the distinction between venial sins (or sins regarding incontinence, such as lust, gluttony, etc...the seven capital vices) and the irreparable sins (such as murder, fraud, treason).
The first are always emendable. If someone has a disordered life, they can change.
The second are irreparable (a murder is not emendable, you cannot bring someone back to life) so they are the gravest ones.
And so repentance is always admissible when it deals with emendable sins, but the second are put into God's judgment.

I suspect that Paul entirely focuses on the sins of sexual nature (which involve incontinence), ignoring the gravest one (such as murder).

As for Catholic soteriology, salvation comes from righteousness. It is entirely taken from the Gospels. Christ's parables indicate clearly how the Kingdom of God can be achieved.

 

[blü 2]

I mean, now you are just saying stuff, no offense. Kyrios is supposed to signify both adon as referring to human masters and the tetragammaton (adonai). See:

Ancient Greek translators employed the word Kyrios (“Lord”) for the Name. ("To the Reader", Bruce M. Metzger, New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV edition)​

Sure. 'The Lord is my shepherd', 'Praise the Lord!' and so on.​

But we're talking about two related things. One is that the Jesus of Paul, the Jesus of Mark, the Jesus of Matthew, the Jesus of Luke and the Jesus of John each deny that they're God and never claim to be God (and thus eg never pray to themselves).

And the second is Paul's clear distinction on that very point between God the Father and Jesus as Lord:

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Philippians 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.​

Ain't rocket science. It's simply what the text says.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

Sure. 'The Lord is my shepherd', 'Praise the Lord!' and so on.​

But we're talking about two related things. One is that the Jesus of Paul, the Jesus of Mark, the Jesus of Matthew, the Jesus of Luke and the Jesus of John each deny that they're God and never claim to be God (and thus eg never pray to themselves).

And the second is Paul's clear distinction on that very point between God the Father and Jesus as Lord:

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Philippians 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.​

Ain't rocket science. It's simply what the text says.

You are using the English text, but the distinction isn't clear at all in the Koine Greek text, which is why so many actual Pauline scholars, whom I trust you believe know more than you think that the shema Paul is reciting implicates the identity of God the Father and Jesus. That's all I really have to say.

 

[Brian2]

I think that one of the most fundamental pillars of Catholic hamartiology is the distinction between venial sins (or sins regarding incontinence, such as lust, gluttony, etc...the seven capital vices) and the irreparable sins (such as murder, fraud, treason).
The first are always emendable. If someone has a disordered life, they can change.
The second are irreparable (a murder is not emendable, you cannot bring someone back to life) so they are the gravest ones.
And so repentance is always admissible when it deals with emendable sins, but the second are put into God's judgment.

I suspect that Paul entirely focuses on the sins of sexual nature (which involve incontinence), ignoring the gravest one (such as murder).

As for Catholic soteriology, salvation comes from rightfulness. It is entirely taken from the Gospels. Christ's parables indicate clearly how the Kingdom of God can be achieved.

Don't forget the mortal sin of being a Catholic and not going to Mass on a Sunday.
I would say that Jesus gospel message is not that salvation comes entirely from rightfulness (whatever that is). Consider passages such as John 3:16 and Matt 20:28.
Faith has a lot to do with salvation but as James said, "Faith without works is dead", and the works James meant were works of love.
Faith works through love. (Gal 5:6)
It is no good saying that we have faith without works BUT earning salvation through just being good enough is something we cannot do.

 

[Estro Felino]

Don't forget the mortal sin of being a Catholic and not going to Mass on a Sunday.
I would say that Jesus gospel message is not that salvation comes entirely from rightfulness (whatever that is). Consider passages such as John 3:16 and Matt 20:28.
Faith has a lot to do with salvation but as James said, "Faith without works is dead", and the works James meant were works of love.
Faith works through love. (Gal 5:6)
It is no good saying that we have faith without works BUT earning salvation through just being good enough is something we cannot do.

The Roman Catholic Church will never say it out loud but good atheists that have numerous merits cannot be denied salvation.
That's what my parish priest whispered to me at catechism.
And in fact, back when I used to ask my parish priest: "Father, what shall I do whenever I have doubts on sin?".
And he replied "Read the four Gospels, over and over again".
He never told me "Read Saint Paul's epistles". Why is that, in your opinion?

And one more thing: Saint Paul speaks of faith in Christ's sacrifice. That is irrelevant, if the Christian believes in this sacrifice and yet murdered someone and did not repent. That Christian won't go to Heaven. And not even to Purgatory.
We Catholics believe that nobody goes straight to Heaven, except the saints and the martyrs.
We all go to Purgatory. But there are many many Christians who believe in Jesus' sacrifice and will go to neither Paradise nor Purgatory.

 

[Estro Felino]

such as John 3:16 and Matthew 20:28.
.

They both mean that Jesus' sacrifice opened the doors of Heaven to the just, the righteous.
What does Jesus do after dying on the cross? He goes to the Hades to take all the good souls, because now the doors of Heaven are open.
It doesn't mean that Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient to go to Heaven.
It is not a ransom that is valid for the wicked.
And angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just.

It doesn't say "angels shall sever the Christians from the non-Christians"

 

[Brian2]

The fallacy would consist of asserting that at least one did. There's no reason to think any of them did.

Matthew was never doubted by the church as being an authentic gospel by Matthew the apostle. That is a reason.
John is a person who was known to others in the Church and known as the writer of a gospel.
6 Ancient Sources That Identify the Author of the Fourth Gospel | Is Jesus Alive?
These are reasons.

Yes, of course.

If you're going to credit Christian supernatural tales as accurate statements about reality then first, you're going to accept tales from a claimed category which is supported by not even one authenticated example; and second, if you accept Christian supernatural tales then you have no reasoned basis for refusing to accept the supernatural stories and myths of any other culture, ancient or modern ─ are you happy to do that? Do you believe in fairies, goblins, banshees, ghosts, magic (the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality, often just by wishing)?

Will you suffer a witch to live?

You say "Yes of course" as if it is reasonable to go to spiritual texts as someone who analyses the text, with the presumption that they are lies.
They have not been shown to be false, and that is why it is naturalistic methodology and why science can say nothing about the truth or not of the supernatural.
I'm happy to accept the possibility that all supernatural claims are true.
You, it seems will say those claims are lies from the start.
I don't know what suffering a witch to be alive has to do with this discussion.

It's far more general than that. Historical method and textual criticism are two overlapping branches of skeptical reasoned enquiry, which is found here and there throughout history but really got into gear and created the modern world as a result of the Enlightenment.

So because science with it's presumptions has managed to study the material world then does that mean that science with the same presumptions (no supernatural until proven to be true) is a good means to determine if the supernatural events in a spiritual text are true or not.

No, the whole thing is lack of clear definitions, lack of testable hypotheses, and as I said, total absence of authenticated examples.

So I suppose that means you cannot see the circular reasoning in it.

 

[Brian2]

The Roman Catholic Church will never say it out loud but good atheists that have numerous merits cannot be denied salvation.
That's what my parish priest whispered to me at catechism.
And in fact, back when I used to ask my parish priest: "Father, what shall I do whenever I have doubts on sin?".
And he replied "Read the four Gospels, over and over again".
He never told me "Read Saint Paul's epistles". Why is that, in your opinion?

The RCC may be right about atheists but it is always a matter of God's mercy.
I don't know why the priest would point to the gospels only, but it could be a case of trying to keep is as simple as possible. But of course many do become legalistic with the gospel of Matthew.

And one more thing: Saint Paul speaks of faith in Christ's sacrifice. That is irrelevant, if the Christian believes in this sacrifice and yet murdered someone and did not repent. That Christian won't go to Heaven. And not even to Purgatory.
We Catholics believe that nobody goes straight to Heaven, except the saints and the martyrs.
We all go to Purgatory. But there are many many Christians who believe in Jesus' sacrifice and will go to neither Paradise nor Purgatory.

We Christians believe in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus (and that includes Catholics) That does not mean imo that others cannot be saved or that all Christians (without works) will be saved.
Actually I was brought up as a Catholic and understand some of the ins and outs of their teachings and do not believe, as some protestants do, that only Christians can be saved.
BUT we cannot get to the Father without going through the Son,,,,,,,,,,,,,, who is going to be the judge.

 

[Estro Felino]

The RCC may be right about atheists but it is always a matter of God's mercy.
I don't know why the priest would point to the gospels only, but it could be a case of trying to keep is as simple as possible. But of course many do become legalistic with the gospel of Matthew.



We Christians believe in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus (and that includes Catholics) That does not mean imo that others cannot be saved or that all Christians (without works) will be saved.
Actually I was brought up as a Catholic and understand some of the ins and outs of their teachings and do not believe, as some protestants do, that only Christians can be saved.
BUT we cannot get to the Father without going through the Son,,,,,,,,,,,,,, who is going to be the judge.

Thank you. Perfect and insightful explanation.

 

[blü 2]

You are using the English text, but the distinction isn't clear at all in the Koine Greek text, which is why so many actual Pauline scholars, whom I trust you believe know more than you think that the shema Paul is reciting implicates the identity of God the Father and Jesus. That's all I really have to say.

Then we agree to strongly disagree, even if it takes me a split infinitive to make the point.

NONE of the NT Jesuses ever claims to be God.

ALL of the NT Jesuses deny they're God.

Jesus doesn't get to be God until the adoption of the Trinity notion in the 4th century CE.

 

[blü 2]

Matthew was never doubted by the church as being an authentic gospel by Matthew the apostle. That is a reason.

It appears to pass all the tests to be a gospel. That doesn't make its contents any better or worse than what we read.

John is a person who was known to others in the Church and known as the writer of a gospel.

We don't know who wrote any of the gospels. We have no reason to think that the author of John met an historical Jesus.

You say "Yes of course" as if it is reasonable to go to spiritual texts as someone who analyses the text, with the presumption that they are lies.

Not quite. I approach the biblical texts as I approach Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico or the Egyptian Book of the Dead or any other ancient text ─ what, when, where, who, why?

They have not been shown to be false, and that is why it is naturalistic methodology and why science can say nothing about the truth or not of the supernatural.
I'm happy to accept the possibility that all supernatural claims are true.

I'm not merely being sarcastic when I say, have you tried that approach on Superman comics? Can humans not only fly but hover, exceed the speed of light, and so on?

You, it seems will say those claims are lies from the start.

I say that much of them is untrue, but may have been edited, varied, embellished, in accordance with narrative practices of that non-literate day and age, until they got written down.

I don't know what suffering a witch to be alive has to do with this discussion.

'You shall not suffer a witch to live' is one of God's commandments in the bible.

You said that we should obey God's commandments in the bible.

So because science with it's presumptions has managed to study the material world then does that mean that science with the same presumptions (no supernatural until proven to be true) is a good means to determine if the supernatural events in a spiritual text are true or not.

It means at the very least that there's not a single authenticated instance of the supernatural in reality, demonstrated to modern standards. That's not an encouraging start, since it gives the researcher nowhere real to stand.

 

[Kenny]

I think that one of the most fundamental pillars of Catholic hamartiology is the distinction between venial sins (or sins regarding incontinence, such as lust, gluttony, etc...the seven capital vices) and the irreparable sins (such as murder, fraud, treason).
The first are always emendable. If someone has a disordered life, they can change.
The second are irreparable (a murder is not emendable, you cannot bring someone back to life) so they are the gravest ones.
And so repentance is always admissible when it deals with emendable sins, but the second are put into God's judgment.

I suspect that Paul entirely focuses on the sins of sexual nature (which involve incontinence), ignoring the gravest one (such as murder).

As for Catholic soteriology, salvation comes from righteousness. It is entirely taken from the Gospels. Christ's parables indicate clearly how the Kingdom of God can be achieved.

My wife had a Catholic background.

I always had a difficulty with "grading" sins in light of the work of The Cross.

If indeed the second are put into God's judgment, did Jesus actually pay for all sins and doesn't that run crossgrain with the Gospel of John as well as the work of The Cross?

 

[Estro Felino]

My wife had a Catholic background.

I always had a difficulty with "grading" sins in light of the work of The Cross.

If indeed the second are put into God's judgment, did Jesus actually pay for all sins and doesn't that run crossgrain with the Gospel of John as well as the work of The Cross?

Jesus' sacrifice has opened the doors of Heaven

And He goes to the Hades to take the righteous soul, after dying, indeed.

Catholic soteriology affirms that repentance is essential, even if the sinner is a Christian believing in the Cross.
That's why we believe in Purgatory, which is a place of expiation.

 

[Kenny]

Jesus' sacrifice has opened the doors of Heaven

And He goes to the Hades to take the righteous soul, after dying, indeed.

Catholic soteriology affirms that repentance is essential, even if the sinner is a Christian believing in the Cross.
That's why we believe in Purgatory, which is a place of expiation.

Got it. And certainly repentance is a key ingredient.

I guess, for me, it runs crossgrain to the Gospels of Jesus and the book of Hebrews as well as among the various books of the TaNaKh including the book of Isaiah.

If I look at Isaiah or the Gospels, I don't see where there was an exception to what Jesus paid for.

 

[Kenny]

Jesus' sacrifice has opened the doors of Heaven

And He goes to the Hades to take the righteous soul, after dying, indeed.

Catholic soteriology affirms that repentance is essential, even if the sinner is a Christian believing in the Cross.
That's why we believe in Purgatory, which is a place of expiation.

So, let me explain from the Gospels:

John 16: 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment:

The Holy Spirit is given to prove these three issues... as we let Jesus explain what it means below"

9 about sin, because they do not believe in me;

This is the sin that condemns. Not what you have done (lie, steal, kill et al) but rather simply because one has not believed. The question is why:

Matthew 1:21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Doesn't qualify how bad. Just "sins". IMV, either He paid for all sins or didn't and there isn't a double payment for the same sins (His and ours)

10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer;

When he went to the Father - he defeated Death, Hell and the Grave. If he resurrected, all sins must have been paid for because if he didn't pay for it, there was no capacity for resurrection.

When he went to the Father, he satisfied all justice.

11 about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.

Lastly - there is only one judgment that the Holy Spirit is proving - and that of the ruler of this world. If one does not believe in Jesus (sin #!) then one is judged as guilty by association with the one who is judged.

At least that is my perspective.

 

[Estro Felino]

So, let me explain from the Gospels:

John 16: 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment:

The Holy Spirit is given to prove these three issues... as we let Jesus explain what it means below"

9 about sin, because they do not believe in me;

This is the sin that condemns. Not what you have done (lie, steal, kill et al) but rather simply because one has not believed. The question is why:

Matthew 1:21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Doesn't qualify how bad. Just "sins". IMV, either He paid for all sins or didn't and there isn't a double payment for the same sins (His and ours)

10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer;

When he went to the Father - he defeated Death, Hell and the Grave. If he resurrected, all sins must have been paid for because if he didn't pay for it, there was no capacity for resurrection.

When he went to the Father, he satisfied all justice.

11 about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.

Lastly - there is only one judgment that the Holy Spirit is proving - and that of the ruler of this world. If one does not believe in Jesus (sin #!) then one is judged as guilty by association with the one who is judged.

At least that is my perspective.

Tell me: how do you interpret Matthew 13:49?
I mean: who are the wicked, and who are the just?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Right, but the claims here are different from the claims you initially made, and are much more minimal (though no less controversial). And the formula that you cite regarding Paul's apparent denial of the identity of Christ and God the Father hinges on interpretation of what exactly the Greek term kyrios is supposed to signify in relation to its Hebrew root, the human adon or the divine adonai. The fact that Paul immediately uses the shema formula in 1 Cor 8:6 while mentioning the lack of reality for Jews of multiple gods in 8:5 with relation to both God the Father and Jesus Christ as Lord also provide structural context for identification, because it would be exceedingly odd for Paul to claim simultaneously that 1.) there are no more than one divine entity and 2.) that both God the Father and Christ are divine personages through which redemption and bringing into the law occur. See:

This interpretation neglects the fact that ‘one Lord’ is not something brought to Deut 6:4, as an additional ‘one’ alongside the ‘one’ God. Rather, κύριος is the divine name in apposition to ὁ θεός in Deut 6:4 itself. The “one nation” of 2 Sam 7:23 presented as a parallel to the εἷς κύριος of 1 Cor 8:6 is, in the end, a red herring; κύριος is the name of the “one God,” a name that picks out the same being as θεός does in Deut 6:4, and that name is now applied to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. Jesus is thereby identified with God as the co-bearer of the divine name. ("Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters", Hill, Wesley, 2015)
​

Also see

The numeral 'one' that is attached to both 'God' and 'Lord' does not set up two competing entities, but it unites in singleness the being and act of God as Father ("One God and Trinitarian Language in the Letters of Paul", Mauser, Ulrich, Horizons in Biblical Theology, 1998, Vol.20 (1), p.99-108)
​

But also see:

All of this seems deliberate on Paul's part. That is, he is reasserting for the Corinthians that their theology has it right: there is indeed only one God, over against all other "gods many and lords many." But at the same time, he insists that the identity of the one God also includes the one Lord; and ultimately he does so because (1) this is the now shared Christian perspective about the one God and (2) it is the inclusion of Christ as Lord in God's identity that will give Paul the leverage to forbid attendance at pagan festive meals. ("Christology in 1 Corinthians", Fee, Gordon F., "Pauline Christology", p.91)
​

Evcn Matthew V. Novenson, who is on the non-identity camp, makes a stronger claim for the divine statue of Jesus than what you seem to be imputing. See:

Paul’s Christ is not identical with God, but he stands in a closer relation to God than any other divine being does. In the letters of Paul, angels and demons are called angels and demons, not ‘sons of God’, as they often are in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Ps 29:1; 89:7; Job 38:7). For Paul, only Christ is the son of God, with the rule-proving exception of people who get joined to Christ and thereby become sons of God themselves (Rom 8:14, 19; 9:26; Gal 3:26; 4:6–7). Christ is, moreover, ‘the image of God’ (2 Cor 4:4), the visible representation of the invisible God (analogous to the measure of the heavenly body of God [shiʿur qomah] in late antique Jewish mysticism). God’s glory (that is, his kavod or bodily presence) has always been hidden in his sanctuary in Jerusalem (Rom 9:4), but in the new creation, all human beings (not only priests but also laypeople, not only Jews but also gentiles) can attain ‘knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ’ (2 Cor 4:6). The divine pneuma (usually translated ‘spirit’) that people receive in the new creation is, at the same time, the pneuma of God and the pneuma of Christ (Rom 8:9). Paul’s Christ is the son of God, the image of God, the face of God. These descriptions are tantalizingly brief, but in one passage Paul supplies a narrative within which their sense becomes a bit clearer (Phil 2:5–11):

"Christ Jesus, who, although he was in the form of God, did not consider it as spoils to be equal with God, but he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being in the likeness of humans; and being found as a human in regard to figure, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, the death of a cross. Therefore indeed God highly exalted him and gave him the name higher than every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of beings in heaven and on earth and in the underworld, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is lord to the glory of God the father."​

In this fascinating passage, Christ is neither God nor human, exactly. He exists in the heavenly form of God, but his likeness and figure are human. He undergoes the quintessentially human experience of death (and thus is a mortal, strictly speaking), but he receives obeisance from human and superhuman beings like a high god would.37 Like Metatron in the Jewish mystical text 3 Enoch, Christ in Philippians 2 is both a deified human being and the archangelic form of God. ("Did Paul abandon either Judaism or Monotheism", Matthew V. Novenson, New Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, 2020, p.252)​

Which certainly isn't the trinitarian formula as conceived by the creedal churches, but is way more "high" than simply considering Christ as God-chosen. Already the hypostatic union is being pressaged in these passages, and Paul uses language that is reminiscent of the incarnation.
But even Novenson admits that the identification of Jesus with God is earlier than the 4th century A.D., as you posit:

Admittedly, Titus 2:13 arguably does call Jesus a god: ‘the appearing of the glory of our great god and savior Jesus Christ.’ (ibid., p.251)​

2 Titus is written way before the 4th century A.D, unless consensus has shifted massively. I think there's an argument to be made that Paul didn't consider Jesus identical with God (and I think he would have been wrong in intending the text in this manner upon revelation from God, but that's a theological question, not exegetical), but in Pauline scholarship your claims are definitely suspect regarding the nature of the shema. As for the concept of the trinity, at the very least its found in the Didache in the 1st century AD, so Augustine was simply reacting to a much older tradition that would become orthodoxy.

I am not as well-versed in Johannine scholarship, I will admit, so I can't really talk about there. Though I'd be skeptical of consensus regarding the shema there too.

Paul and his contemporaries predated the concept of the trinity and the acceptance of it as church doctrine by more than a lifetime. Though the difficulties of recognising the deity of Jesus, exercised all their minds. The holy spirit was less challenging, for at that time all churches accepted that it emanated from God. A position still recognised by the orthodox church. And the unaltered Creed.

 

[Estro Felino]

Paul and his contemporaries predated the concept of the trinity and the acceptance of it as church doctrine by more than a lifetime. Though the difficulties of recognising the deity of Jesus, exercised all their minds. The holy spirit was less challenging, for at that time all churches accepted that it emanated from God. A position still recognised by the orthodox church. And the unaltered Creed.

The notion of Trinity is the most misunderstood concept in the history of religion.
The Trinity does not mean there are three gods. That would be polytheism.
There is One God.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The notion of Trinity is the most misunderstood concept in the history of religion.
The Trinity does not mean there are three gods. That would be polytheism.
There is One God.

That is why I am a heretic. I tend to the Unitarian point of view.
One God. Jesus was a Son of God. The holy Spirit comes from God it is through the holy spirit that God communicates with us.