Pauline theology versus the teachings of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter havemercy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

havemercy

Guest
Myself being a Catholic, I do see harmony between the Gospels and St. Paul’s letters, but some people object to there being any possible way for the two to co-exist, that is bound to one book. Paul’s gospel of a “Crucified Christ” was his own invention, some say, and he preached a different gospel than Jesus.

No doubt several of you are very familiar with Pauline theology and their relation to the Gospels, and the teachings of our Lord. Perhaps you’ve dealt with debunking such assertions, I however have not, nor am I a terribly good theologian. A lot of what Paul argues escapes me, and I’m looking to understand him better, so as to actually see the teachings of Paul and Christ under the same light…Not just by faith.

What say you?
 
I, too, have heard similar thoughts. “Paul gave birth to Protestantism” is my favorite. I thought St. Augustine did that:D!!!

Actually, Paul’s writings support so much of what Jesus taught.
40.png
havemercy:
Paul’s gospel of a “Crucified Christ” was his own invention.
Click to expand...
Whoever told you this has never read the Gospel of John. Christ commented that He would not come into His glory until “the hour” (of His death) several times (paraphrasing, here). The Gospel of Mark strongly implies that Jesus achieved His Glory on the Cross as well.

I love it when “Bible Experts” are so mis-guided on topics like this.

Notworthy
 
40.png
havemercy:
Myself being a Catholic, I do see harmony between the Gospels and St. Paul’s letters, but some people object to there being any possible way for the two to co-exist, that is bound to one book. Paul’s gospel of a “Crucified Christ” was his own invention, some say, and he preached a different gospel than Jesus.

No doubt several of you are very familiar with Pauline theology and their relation to the Gospels, and the teachings of our Lord. Perhaps you’ve dealt with debunking such assertions, I however have not, nor am I a terribly good theologian. A lot of what Paul argues escapes me, and I’m looking to understand him better, so as to actually see the teachings of Paul and Christ under the same light…Not just by faith.

What say you?
Click to expand...
Paul is a truly interesting figure. He once said in one of his letters that it was a disgrace for a man to wear his hair and beard long, although it is common belief that Jesus wore his hair and beard in that exact manner (one wonders why that view of Jesus didn’t change in response to Paul’s comment, but that is separate conjecture). In the end, one can’t look at Paul with the same view that one would use to look at the Evangelists. This is, after all, the same man who once hunted down Christians. Once a skewed mind, always a skewed mind, even after conversion.
 
40.png
havemercy:
Myself being a Catholic, I do see harmony between the Gospels and St. Paul’s letters, but some people object to there being any possible way for the two to co-exist, that is bound to one book. Paul’s gospel of a “Crucified Christ” was his own invention, some say, and he preached a different gospel than Jesus.

No doubt several of you are very familiar with Pauline theology and their relation to the Gospels, and the teachings of our Lord. Perhaps you’ve dealt with debunking such assertions, I however have not, nor am I a terribly good theologian. A lot of what Paul argues escapes me, and I’m looking to understand him better, so as to actually see the teachings of Paul and Christ under the same light…Not just by faith.
Click to expand...
The thing is, Paul’s epistles were written before the gospels, and Paul’s teaching is at one with the teaching of the other apostles. Thus, the gospels were a product of the Church already established on the teachings of Paul and the apostles. It makes no sense to assume that the Church would then write gospels that were contrary to what they believed.
 
Let’s face it. Paul was a cantankerous pain in the a**. His suggestion that people who did not agree with him could go and castrate themselves, tells me that he would not have made much of a diplomat.

Just the same, there is nothing wrong with his teachings and there is no conflict between them and the gospels except in tone and attitude.
 
In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter speaks of how Paul’s writtings can be difficult to understand. Paul was a Pharisee who focused his ministry on the Jews while Peter’s was focused mostly on the gentiles.

In essence, Paul was a Phd of Judaism and OT scriptures. Give such a man a healthy endowment of wisdom along with a certain felicity of expression that comes with the Holy Spirit and it is no wonder that his words can easily confuse people.

It should not surprise you that “…some people object to there being any possible way for the two to co-exist, that is bound to one book. Paul’s gospel of a “Crucified Christ” was his own invention, some say, and he preached a different gospel than Jesus.”

Many Protestants today read the words… “This is my body, this is my blood,” and they cannot understand their literal meaning. If these obvious words cannot be understood by some, then certainly the words of Paul will also be misunderstood.

Thal59
 
40.png
Thal59:
Many Protestants today read the words… “This is my body, this is my blood,” and they cannot understand their literal meaning. If these obvious words cannot be understood by some, then certainly the words of Paul will also be misunderstood.

Thal59
Click to expand...
:amen:

Notworthy
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
Excuse me?

Notworthy
Click to expand...
Please don’t misunderstand me here. All I’m saying is that conversion doesn’t wipe the hard drive clean, if you know what I mean. The narcissistic fervor behind his hunting down of Christians had to have been channeled somewhere else. Just where isn’t exactly clear, but it seems broadly to be in the attitude of his letters. See post #6.
 
40.png
richbansha:
Let’s face it. Paul was a cantankerous pain in the a**. His suggestion that people who did not agree with him could go and castrate themselves, tells me that he would not have made much of a diplomat.
Click to expand...
That made me chuckle uncontrollably.

I know little about St. Paul, but I’m used to his fiery use of hyperbolic language by now. 😉

I want to get to know Paul’s writings better. Does anyone know any studies or books done on him and his epistles?

Thanks a lot!
Tony
 
Hello Havemercy,

**The Jesus vs. St. Paul debate. **

St. Paul can be easily missunderstood as to be throwing out the importance of obeying God’s commandments, with all your strength, to go to heaven. St. Paul throws out the law of circumcision and the Pharisee created laws and not the Law of God’s commandments. St. Peter warns us to be very careful when reading St. Paul’s writings.

St. Paul says,

Galatians 2:16
…who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. Jesus says,

NAB MAT 19:16

“Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?” He answered, “Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied “You shall not kill”; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’; ‘You shall not bear false witness’; ‘Honor your father and mother’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

**St. Paul also teaches us to obey the commandments if we wish to go to heaven. Scripture many “faith alone” Christians miss. **

NAB ROM 2:6

. . . when he will repay every man for what he has done: eternal life to those who strive for glory, honor, and immortality by patiently doing right; wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. St. Paul’s writings were debating the law of circumcision and the Pharisee created Church laws and not God’s Law of the commandments.

NAB ACT 15:1
Some men came down to Antioch from Judea and began to teach the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” This created dissension and much controversy between them and Paul and Barnabas.NAB ACT 21:20
“You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have come to believe, all of them staunch defenders of the law. Yet they have been informed that you teach the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, to give up the circumcision of their children, and to renounce their customs.” **NAB PHI 3:5 **(St. Paul is speaking.)
I was circumcised on the eighth day, being of the stock of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew origins; in legal observance I was a Pharisee, and so zealous that I persecuted the church. I was above reproach when it came to justice based on the law. (GAL 6:13)**NAB 1CO 7:19 **(St. Paul is speaking.)
Circumcision counts for nothing, and its lack makes no difference either. **What matters is keeping God’s commandments.****NAB ROM 2:13 **(St. Paul is speaking.)
**For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; it is those who keep it who will be declared just.**NAB 2PE 3:14 Preparation for the Coming.

Consider that our Lord’s patience is directed toward salvation. Paul, our beloved brother, wrote you this in the spirit of wisdom that is his, dealing with these matters as he does in all his letters. There are certain passages in them hard to understand. The ignorant and the unstable distort them (just as they do the rest of Scripture) to their own ruin. You are forewarned, beloved brothers. Be on your guard lest you be led astray by the error of the wicked, and forfeit the security you enjoy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top