Do Some Protestants Favor Paul Over Jesus?

[Fidelis]

Kevan:

God’s revelation in the Bible is progressive. The later parts tend to clarify the earlier parts. Paul clarifies the earlier words of the Lord Jesus, therefore we interpret Jesus in light of Paul, even as we interpret Moses in light of the prophets and interpret the prophets in light of Jesus.

One very helpful principle in Bible interpretation is to interpret historical passages in light of didactic passages. The gospels and Acts are history; they tell you what was said and what occurred, but they don’t always explain why it was said or why it occurred. For this reason, the book of Acts (especially) is the treasure chest of resources for all the weird heterodox movements that crop up in Protestantism.

This is exactly what James White said in my original post and only reinforces my initial suspicions.

I think this is a highly artificial method of Scripture interpretation, to say the least. What it enables a person or group to do is arrive at a doctrine first, then go back and interpret the earlier writings based on the later. The true (and Catholic) approach is to take the WHOLE of Scripture and see how it all relates as a unity. Jesus’ words are not so obtuse they need clarification by Paul; they are perfectly clear in and of themselves. Paul’s writings should be interpreted in light of Jesus’ teachings, not the other way around.

 

[Vincent1560]

santaro75:

Sorry about that. I think i get used to certain accusations and i get into auto-apologetics mode.

no problem

 

[Vincent1560]

PJR:

How do you see it for you then? When Jesus said, “Take this and eat it, this is my body…” What did he mean?

The following is a response I cut and pasted from another thread when asked the same question:

I haven’t studied communion/Eucharist enough to state my view on it and proclaim it here as being truth. It is a matter I am still learning about and am definetley willing to hear your views on the subject. If you are interested, my view after doing what study I have done is that communion is to be done often in remembrance of Christ per the scriptures. And obviously communion should be taken with reverence for it is a sacred act like baptism. I further believe that when Jesus states that he who eats his flesh and drinks his blood abides in him and vice versa that he does not mean we are eating or drinking his physical body. One reason I believe this is that when he has communion with the disciples the gospel gives no indication that his actual body is shredded or his blood spilled in the process. I also think that when he says “this is my body…” he is not being merely symbolic. I believe that some kind of metaphysical transformation takes place in the bread and wine such that it has the property of imparting the essence or substance of Christ to us. Again this is my view thus far and I do not claim to be declaring this as necessarily the complete picture because I have not studied the matter fully. I know that Catholics believe the bread and wine become the body and blood without actually changing their physical properties, so I am not sure wether we agree in "substance " and merely have a semantic disagreement or wether we do in fact have a substantial disagreement.

 

[Fidelis]

Vincent1560:

The following is a response I cut and pasted from another thread when asked the same question:

I haven’t studied communion/Eucharist enough to state my view on it and proclaim it here as being truth. It is a matter I am still learning about and am definetley willing to hear your views on the subject. If you are interested, my view after doing what study I have done is that communion is to be done often in remembrance of Christ per the scriptures. And obviously communion should be taken with reverence for it is a sacred act like baptism. I further believe that when Jesus states that he who eats his flesh and drinks his blood abides in him and vice versa that he does not mean we are eating or drinking his physical body. One reason I believe this is that when he has communion with the disciples the gospel gives no indication that his actual body is shredded or his blood spilled in the process. I also think that when he says “this is my body…” he is not being merely symbolic. I believe that some kind of metaphysical transformation takes place in the bread and wine such that it has the property of imparting the essence or substance of Christ to us. Again this is my view thus far and I do not claim to be declaring this as necessarily the complete picture because I have not studied the matter fully. I know that Catholics believe the bread and wine become the body and blood without actually changing their physical properties, so I am not sure wether we agree in "substance " and merely have a semantic disagreement or wether we do in fact have a substantial disagreement.

Sounds like a good topic for a different thread.

 

[Kevan]

Fidelis:

Paul’s writings should be interpreted in light of Jesus’ teachings, not the other way around.

And so you see how natural it is to interpret one in the light of the other. This opposes your earlier desire “to take the WHOLE of Scripture and see how it all relates as a unity,” which you originally advanced in opposition to my interpreting one in light of another.

In fact, of course, the two ideas are not opposed. It’s everyone’s desire to take the whole of Scripture and see how it relates as a unity.

These two principles, though, are hard to deny: interpret earlier revelation in light of later, and interpret discursive or narrative passages in light of didactic.

But don’t worry, no principle of interpretation is airtight enough to convince someone against his will. We will all manage to prove from Scripture what we want to find there.

Not you, of course; I mean the rest of us.

 

[Mamamull]

I didn’t question the system for most of life as fundamentalist. It was just as I grew up that I realized that we were being taught to worship Jesus only.

God the Father and God the Holy Spirit were not considered equal to Jesus and barely mentioned. Only Jesus and the Holy Bible in the KJV form were important.

I remember hearing a lot the Epistles and the Book of Revelations. Apologetics, not that they called it that was the primary focus of religious education. (e.g. How to overcome a member of the Church of Christ, a Methodist, etc) There was also a lot of Cathollic bashing based on bad information and misunderstanding.

I never knew about The Magnificat or anything of the life of Mary. The Blessed Mother was not mentioned except at Christmas. Her role in being the single human creation to share life with God the Son in the most intimate manner was never considered. Her role in the Gospels were just ignored.

Now, the Baptist community I was part of thought we knew our Bibles better than idol-worshipping, saved by works Catholics. Yet we didn’t go through one Gospel systematically each year. We went through an Epistle sometimes, but that was when there wasn’t something to show prophecy in the Book of Revelations.

It really gets my goat when I hear fundies call the St. John, John the revelator. :banghead: Yep his only great writing was the Book of Revelations.

They have some of the Truth, yes, but I still believe that the Roman Catholic faith has the fullness of Truth.

 

[Nan_S]

I’m not going to speak for or against Protestant emphasis on Paul vs. Jesus, but I do have a thought about Catholic emphasis coming from growing-up Catholic and attending countless masses:

In every Mass we have three readings: OT, NT letters, and Gospel.

OT is normally interesting - hellfire and brimstone.

Gospel is normally interesting - parables, personal anecdotes, builds on theme from OT reading

NT letters - esoteric, philosophical, high-minded lecture, unrelated to the other two readings - snozzzzz :yawn:

Just my impression here, but it seems to be shared by this generation of young people as much as it was in my day. It certainly would give one reason why we, as ordinary lay people, don’t emphasize Paul so much.