Jesuism versus Paulinism

[Gaiseric]

And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country. (Luke 4.23)

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. (John 16.7)

If Jesus dies not we die. You cannot grasp his doctrine i.e., drink his blood, his Spirit without the Spirit. Hence Jesus’ sacrifice, an unjust death indeed. That scandalous, undeserved death is an astonishing sin, a curse. It made our sins negligible. Jesus made us white.

You are confusing Earthly death with the death that is Hell.

Gehenna, not Hell or Sheol, is the second death.

 

[CrossofChrist]

If Jesus dies not we die. You cannot grasp his doctrine i.e., drink his blood, his Spirit without the Spirit. Hence Jesus’ sacrifice, an unjust death indeed. That scandalous, undeserved death is an astonishing sin, a curse. It made our sins negligible. Jesus made us white.

Gehenna, not Hell or Sheol, is the second death.

Sock puppet?

Regardless this makes no sense.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

I suppose it would be fair to say that the teachings of Jesus are more in the ascetic tradition, emphasizing renunciation of the world, the self, and obedience to the law. THe teachings of Paul emphasize faith in the redemptive effect of the death and Resurrection of Christ. To oversimplify:

**- if you follow the teaching of Jesus, you become a Fransiscan, a Trappist, a Daughter of Charity, etc., renouncing property, marriage, homeland.

• if you follow the teachings of Paul, you become an upper-middle class Protestant, with kids, a mortgage.**

Now, as I said, this is a gross oversimplification, as both the Gospels and Paul need to be read in conjunction. But the words of Christ in the Gospels have primacy of everything else, and so are the definitive teachings of what makes a Christian. That is where our Protestant friends go so wrong.

I don’t think this is true at all. But, I was there once too; thinking Paul was “for Protestants” and Jesus was for Catholics.

Then I actually read Paul’s Epistles, in their entirety, as an adult. This is what brought me back to Christ, and the Catholic Church. Why? Because Paul is the first great witness to the power of the resurrected Christ and the bulldog of orthodoxy in the early Church. Even as Peter faltered with the idea that Jew and Gentile were meaningless distinctions in the eyes of God and that Mosaic Law had been superceded, Paul stood firm, going as far as to rebuke the man given the Keys to the Kingdom for his error.

His testimony is that of a man touched, changed and compelled to give up everything he had to live the live of a slave: beaten, stoned, whipped, imprisioned, and finally executed…all for the sake of the one, true Gospel he had been given by Jesus to preach to ALL people, Jew and Gentile.

Paul’s letters are from a sinner and written for sinners. I read the Gospels to learn about our Savior’s earthly ministry. I read Paul to learn what it means to be a Christian.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t think this is true at all. But, I was there once too; thinking Paul was “for Protestants” and Jesus was for Catholics.

Then I actually read Paul’s Epistles, in their entirety, as an adult. This is what brought me back to Christ, and the Catholic Church. Why? Because Paul is the first great witness to the power of the resurrected Christ and the bulldog of orthodoxy in the early Church. Even as Peter faltered with the idea that Jew and Gentile were meaningless distinctions in the eyes of God and that Mosaic Law had been superceded, Paul stood firm, going as far as to rebuke the man given the Keys to the Kingdom for his error.

His testimony is that of a man touched, changed and compelled to give up everything he had to live the live of a slave: beaten, stoned, whipped, imprisioned, and finally executed…all for the sake of the one, true Gospel he had been given by Jesus to preach to ALL people, Jew and Gentile.

Paul’s letters are from a sinner and written for sinners. I read the Gospels to learn about our Savior’s earthly ministry. I read Paul to learn what it means to be a Christian.

I agree it is merely the misinterpreting of Paul that drives Americanized middle class Protestantism.

It’s weird how living the American dream is so in line with a lot of Protestant theology.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

I agree it is merely the misinterpreting of Paul that drives Americanized middle class Protestantism.

It’s weird how living the American dream is so in line with a lot of Protestant theology.

Sadly, I think American Catholicism has largely ceded Paul to the Protestants. It is nearly impossible to get any value out of the paragraph or two of literal translation from the Epistles we hear during the 2nd reading, and in my parish the stock homily is applying the Gospel reading to a moral issue of today.

IMO, to get better catechized Catholics, we need to take Paul back, so to speak. Our priests (my local ones at least) need to go a bit deeper into the Bible and teach the parish not only how to apply the morality of Jesus in everyday life, but explain what we believe as Catholics and why.

What percent of Catholics would know how to handle a question about why OT dietary laws aren’t binding on Christians? What percent would know where to find this teaching in Scripture?

What percent of Catholics could respond to the false claim that our Church bases justification on works, not faith? What percent would be able to show evidence from Scripture that even the free gift of the cross can be squandered and thrown away by failing to do our best to live in a Christian way as a counter point?

Paul has the answers to all of these questions. It is a shame that Peter was right about how difficult it is to understand Paul’s writings. This is all the reason more why Paul’s writings should be taught more from our pulpits.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Sadly, I think American Catholicism has largely ceded Paul to the Protestants. It is nearly impossible to get any value out of the paragraph or two of literal translation from the Epistles we hear during the 2nd reading, and in my parish the stock homily is applying the Gospel reading to a moral issue of today.

IMO, to get better catechized Catholics, we need to take Paul back, so to speak. Our priests (my local ones at least) need to go a bit deeper into the Bible and teach the parish not only how to apply the morality of Jesus in everyday life, but explain what we believe as Catholics and why.

What percent of Catholics would know how to handle a question about why OT dietary laws aren’t binding on Christians? What percent would know where to find this teaching in Scripture?

What percent of Catholics could respond to the false claim that our Church bases justification on works, not faith? What percent would be able to show evidence from Scripture that even the free gift of the cross can be squandered and thrown away by failing to do our best to live in a Christian way as a counter point?

Paul has the answers to all of these questions. It is a shame that Peter was right about how difficult it is to understand Paul’s writings. This is all the reason more why Paul’s writings should be taught more from our pulpits.

I blessed with two priests and a deacon who are good preachers. I always listen to father Barron’s homilies on podcast and encourage others as well. He is an excellent theologian and preacher and he is now training the next generation of priests in the seminaries. This area seems to be in focus for the church as part of the new evangelization.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

I blessed with two priests and a deacon who are good preachers. I always listen to father Barron’s homilies on podcast and encourage others as well. He is an excellent theologian and preacher and he is now training the next generation of priests in the seminaries. This area seems to be in focus for the church as part of the new evangelization.

We have an elderly priest that gives good introspective homilies. He teaches about the sacraments, provides quotes from Saints and other pieces of religious writings he comes across. It is pretty good stuff.

The other two have the stock - take daily gospel and apply moral lesson. One is more about shock value (he gave a homily about “The Good Taliban” to show how The Good Samaritan story would have been difficult for people in Jesus’ time to accept.) The other is more into a social justice type agenda, love your neighbor, don’t judge others, etc.

All three have valid points, and obviously what they say sticks with me, but it is lacking a bit in some of the basic theology from the Bible that support the Church’s doctrines and should be taught and refreshed frequently, IMO.