How did St Paul consider Jesus

[PNEUMA]

Hi!

Did you know that the Jehovah Witnesses take a passage from Scriptures and they state something akin to ‘this is what God says,’ yet they miss the Message altogether?

Just quoting Scriptures does not mean that Scriptures support what we think is being said.

Look at this passage:

We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (1 St. John 5:20)

Do you see the Message?

Jesus is God.

Yes I do, the message is that we are in the true God (the Father) by being in his Son Jesus Christ. Which is completely in line with

A. John 14:20 “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you”

B. John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”

In other words, we are in Jesus Christ, who is in the true God, this is the eternal life.

 

[PNEUMA]

JCrichton

Thank you for your courteous and thoughtful post to me.

I am still confused. I have gone through Romans tonight and many verses indicate to me that Paul thought God and Jesus were separate, 2;16, 5:1, 5:15, 7:25, 8:34, 10:9, 15:6.

At the same time Paul knew that Jesus now sits on God’s throne (is God)

Matthew 28:18 “And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”

Given to him by the Father

John 5:22 “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son”

 

[NoelFitz]

At the same time Paul knew that Jesus now sits on God’s throne (is God)

Matthew 28:18 “And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”

Given to him by the Father

John 5:22 “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son”

**Pneuma **

I cannot see how John or Matthew helps us to see who Paul thought Jesus was.

I am not sure that Paul held that Jesus sits on God’s throne. To me it seems he considered that Jesus was beside God, which might mean he did not think Jesus was God, but his son.

• If then you were raised with Christ, seek what is above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. (Col. 3:1 NAB)

But he, filled with the holy Spirit, looked up intently to heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, (Acts 7:55 NAB)

Who will condemn? It is Christ [Jesus] who died, rather, was raised, who also is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. (Rom. 8:34 NAB)

which he worked in Christ, raising him from the dead and seating him at his right hand in the heavens, (Eph 1:20 NAB)

 

[NoelFitz]

Pneoma
You wrote
In other words, we are in Jesus Christ, who is in the true God, this is the eternal life.
This has no bearing on this thread.

 

[NoelFitz]

Jcrichton #40

Your reply to me is brilliant, as it contains solid intellectual explanations and spiritual insights, so as well as clarifying my views I feel built up in the faith. But I do not understand your reply fully, so I am challenged again to make progress, this takes time and effort.

Your quote from Romans 10 is encouraging, but as Catholics do we tend to think excessively in terms of a law based religion. We need to avoid sex outside marriage, no contraception, go to mass on Sundays etc. I am sure we have more than 613 mitzvot. Do Catholics need more than calling on the name of the Lord to be saved? Paul was clear Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites (1 Cor. 6:9 NAB) (1 Cor. 6:9 NAB). So seeing our religion as Law-free needs discernment.

You quote Deu 6:4-9. The Sh’ma is among my favourite parts of Scripture, showing both Jews and Christians have the same fundamental belief – to love God.

You post clearly show that you consider Paul believed Jesus was Lord, and by this he meant God.

Finally thanks again, and let us remember each other in our prayers.

 

[PNEUMA]

**Pneuma **

I cannot see how John or Matthew helps us to see who Paul thought Jesus was.

I am not sure that Paul held that Jesus sits on God’s throne. To me it seems he considered that Jesus was beside God, which might mean he did not think Jesus was God, but his son.

• If then you were raised with Christ, seek what is above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. (Col. 3:1 NAB)

But he, filled with the holy Spirit, looked up intently to heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, (Acts 7:55 NAB)

Who will condemn? It is Christ [Jesus] who died, rather, was raised, who also is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. (Rom. 8:34 NAB)

which he worked in Christ, raising him from the dead and seating him at his right hand in the heavens, (Eph 1:20 NAB)

Yes he sat down beside the Father on his throne

Revelation 3:21 “To the one who conquers I will give a place with me on my throne, just as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne”

Revelation 22:3 “the throne of God and of the Lamb”

The whole point is, that he is one with God the Father, and thereby is God (John 10:30) ruler of heaven and earth.

BTW: Ephesians 2:4 “God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus”

 

[jcrichton]

Jcrichton #40

Your reply to me is brilliant, as it contains solid intellectual explanations and spiritual insights, so as well as clarifying my views I feel built up in the faith. But I do not understand your reply fully, so I am challenged again to make progress, this takes time and effort.

Hi, Noel!

I’ve highlighted the reason for my Hope–to steal the A-teams motto: “I love it when God’s Plan Comes together.”

This is what I live for; God’s Purpose is that we Reach Him together (no “me” in His Club!); the other thing that God is Great on is that all workers get the Same Wages–there are no losers in His Field; so don’t despair if I’m a few steps ahead on something; it is the Holy Spirit Who Gives us Grace and Abilities… He works on each person’s timetable and needs. Our part is to Give to God everything that we can, from our heart!

Remember that Jesus said that there’s great joy in Heaven for a single sinner that Repents–I doubt that there’s less joy for those who Believe and Fellowship in God when he/she gains progress in the Faith!

Your quote from Romans 10 is encouraging, but as Catholics do we tend to think excessively in terms of a law based religion. We need to avoid sex outside marriage, no contraception, go to mass on Sundays etc. I am sure we have more than 613 mitzvot. Do Catholics need more than calling on the name of the Lord to be saved? Paul was clear Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites (1 Cor. 6:9 NAB)

(1 Cor. 6:9 NAB). So seeing our religion as Law-free needs discernment.

You quote Deu 6:4-9. The Sh’ma is among my favourite parts of Scripture, showing both Jews and Christians have the same fundamental belief – to love God.
Consider that Jesus stated that He did not Come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to Give them Fulfillment; the Church Understands that we Live by Faith in Jesus but “Believing” is not just an exercise in accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior; it is Abiding in Christ so that He may ABIDE in us (St. John 15:1-10); this Abiding in Christ demands that we not fear the Law but that we engage our life through the Commandments God has Revealed… Christ tells us that the Greatest Commandment is to Love Yahweh God Above all and the second, Love our neighbor as ourselves… yet, we cannot Love God without Loving our neighbor and we cannot Love our neighbor without Loving ourselves… so all the don’ts and dos, observed through the Greatest Commandments, complete/uphold the Law and the Prophets!

We are no longer obedient because of the threat of death; rather we are obedient because we begin to fully understand Deu 6:4-9–so it is in His Love that we Move and Hope or fail to do so and lose Grace and, ultimately, Salvation.

Finally thanks again, and let us remember each other in our prayers.

My pleasure!

We are Called to help carry Jesus’ burden… prayer is one form of Uniting ourselves to God in our Fellowship in Christ with our brethren… sorry, long-winded way of saying, I’ll keep you in my prayers as well!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[De_Maria]

In all 13 letters of Paul, except the Pastoral Epistles and Colossians Paul refers to Jesus as ‘Lord’. I believe ‘Lord’ (‘Kurios’) can mean anything from Mr/Sir to God. What did Paul think calling Jesus ‘Lord’ meant?

Also Jesus is referred to by Paul as ‘Son of God’ only in Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians, these include three of the four most important Pauline Letters (Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor and Gal). For a classically educated Roman citizen the idea of a son of God was not exceptional, thus the Roman centurion could accept Jesus as God’s son (Mt 27:54, Mk 15:39, Lk 23:47. But for a monotheist Jew the idea of God’s son would have been unacceptable. Also a son of God does not necessarily imply equality. So what did Paul mean by ‘Son of God’.

Also Philippians and Romans may imply Paul held in adoptionism.

Dogma was defined over time, so in the early Church beliefs were not settled. Even Origen, one of the greatest theologians ever and who died in 254 AD, believed the Son was inferior to the Father.

Church beliefs were settled. Dogma is only defined when Doctrine is challenged by heresy or large scale misunderstanding.

So I would like to know what/who St Paul thought Jesus was. What did he mean by ‘Lord’ and ‘Son of God’?

He meant God.

*but established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.d (Rom. 1:4 NAB)

he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name (Phil. 2:8,9 NAB)*

You need to study Catholic Doctrine. Without a basis in Catholic Doctrine, you won’t understand Scripture.

 

[ericc]

May I , please, reiterate that I consider we have moved far from the original focus of this thread.
It started with:
So I would like to know what/who St Paul thought Jesus was. What did he mean by ‘Lord’ and ‘Son of God’?

This query has not been answered fully for me.

Before the conversion of Saul, as a trained Pharisee he could not have accepted the concept of the Trinity. In Acts 9:17 Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit and and in Acts 9:20, he was already preaching Jesus as the Son of God. Therefore, Paul must have been filled with such knowledge during his conversion by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will teach us all truths. It is interesting to note that Paul’s first preaching words are that Jesus is the Son of God. A true-blue Pharisee will say that is blasphemy. Paul after conversion would know more intimately about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I suspect his word choice for God the Father and Lord Jesus is to help differentiate these persons when there was no such word to illustrate the 3 persons Godhead in Judaism. Trinity was revealed but not well-explained. Even today. Mystery.

Jimmy Akin jimmyakin.com/the-difference-between-lord-and-lord explains the Lord word usage.

 

[NoelFitz]

Ericc

Thanks for a brilliant reply.

I think we all agree Paul considered Jesus the Son of God. Being a child of God was no problem for Jews.

For you are our father. Were Abraham not to know us, nor Israel to acknowledge us, You, LORD, are our father, our redeemer you are named from of old. (Isa. 63:16 NAB)

But we all are. We say the ‘Our Father’.

The idea of gods having children with humans was familiar to Romans, for example the Centurion (Mt 27:54 Mk 15:35).

Galatians may provide food for thought:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption. As proof that you are children, God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God. (Gal. 4:4-7 NAB).

Our faith is not soley based on the bible, tradition plays its part. The old idea was recvelation comes from Scripture and tradition, now we consider one source Scripture as interpreted by the Church, this happened over centuries. Perhaps the first theologians to explicitly consider the Trinity were Terullian and the author of the Didache.

The Trinity need not be explicitly in the NT, but nothing contrary to it can be. So it is OK to say Paul did not explicitly hold the Trinity, but it is not OK to say he disagreed with it.

 

[NoelFitz]

De Maria,

sometimes it seems I disagree with what you write, but I fully agree with you when you wrote
You need to study Catholic Doctrine. Without a basis in Catholic Doctrine, you won’t understand Scripture.

 

[ericc]

Ericc

Thanks for a brilliant reply.

I think we all agree Paul considered Jesus the Son of God. Being a child of God was no problem for Jews.

For you are our father. Were Abraham not to know us, nor Israel to acknowledge us, You, LORD, are our father, our redeemer you are named from of old. (Isa. 63:16 NAB)

But we all are. We say the ‘Our Father’.

The idea of gods having children with humans was familiar to Romans, for example the Centurion (Mt 27:54 Mk 15:35).

Galatians may provide food for thought:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption. As proof that you are children, God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God. (Gal. 4:4-7 NAB).

Our faith is not soley based on the bible, tradition plays its part. The old idea was recvelation comes from Scripture and tradition, now we consider one source Scripture as interpreted by the Church, this happened over centuries. Perhaps the first theologians to explicitly consider the Trinity were Terullian and the author of the Didache.

The Trinity need not be explicitly in the NT, but nothing contrary to it can be. So it is OK to say Paul did not explicitly hold the Trinity, but it is not OK to say he disagreed with it.

However John 5:18 says that the Jews didn’t think it was OK for Jesus to claim as the Son of God and not as one of the many (created) sons of God. Jesus claimed to be “I AM”. I don’t think Paul was merely teaching Jesus as one of the created sons of God but as “I AM”.