The Last Supper

[MT1926]

The fact that Paul had not met with the original Apostles or received any authority from them creates the problem with apostolic succession.

Jesus can have as many Apostles as he chooses. He happened to chose 12.

I’m going to start here cause it is kind of quick. Basically to understand the roll of St. Peter and the Apostles we go back to the Old Testament to see why Jesus establishes Peter as His royal steward for He gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads,*

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”*

To understand this verse and St. Peter’s roll we need to understand how kingdoms were run in ancient times.

In ancient times, the king would choose a Royal Steward or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

Now just because St. Peter and the other Apostles under him have authority, this in no way means the King (Jesus) can’t step in an appoint another with them or even in their places. So I still don’t see where the problem of Apostolic succession comes into the picture. Technically speaking if you were to ask one of the Apostles they would say it was God that chose Judas’ successor not them. Read Acts 1:12-26

In verse 20 St. Peter tells us that God has fortold us in the book of Psalms that the Apostles would have successors.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’

And in verse 24 they let the the Lord guide them to the proper selection.

• 24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.”*

 

[porthos11]

I didn’t mean that God’s direct revelation to Paul creates a problem with apostolic succession. The fact that Paul had not met with the original Apostles or received any authority from them creates the problem with apostolic succession.

Jesus can have as many Apostles as he chooses. He happened to chose 12.

And as I said, Paul does not receive his authority from the original apostles. He is an apostle in his own right, his apostolic authority coming from Christ himself, just as the other Twelve did.

There is no apostolic succession involved, as Paul is at the top of the line, just like the Twelve.

 

[MT1926]

You assume Paul had received his revelation of the Last Supper as of the time he went to spend 15 days with Peter. 1 Corinthians 11 does not state when Paul received the revelation, but from what I state below, it seems likely Paul had not received the revelation as of that time.

Like I said the Bible does not tell us. So yes I assume he either received it directly from God or from St. Peter. I think it is a valid assumption, what do you think they discussed for 15 days? Keep in mind when St. Paul was Saul he was a persecutor of Christians. He wasn’t just a persecutor because he was told to, he was because he knew the life of Jesus and knew all the stories already and did not believe. So once he received his revelation of who Jesus really was he would right then know and believe all of the stories were true. Therefor, it is not like St. Peter sat there telling him all of the stories he already knew. So I would think it is safe to assume that they most likely talked about the things Jesus did in private, including the last supper. I would think this is the revelation St. Paul would bring to St. Peter to prove he received his revelation from God.

one can only wonder why the Corinthians were celebrating the type of “supper” described in 1 Corinthians 11, 20-22 as late as 20 years after the crucifixion. This tells me you are probably wrong about Paul having correctly preached about the Last Supper for a period of 20 years. It seems far more likely that the abuses of 1 Corinthians 11, 20-22 were the result of the fact that Paul had not been properly preaching about the Last Supper for any significant amount of time prior to 1 Corinthians 11.

Okay, I’m starting to think you are just having fun with me now. I am willing to spend all the time you need to go through this, but if you are going to jump to conclusions like this I don’t know where else to go. I honestly can’t see how you can come to the conclusion St. Paul must have been preaching the wrong Gospel. Basically, you are saying because you found some people that can’t follow the correct teaching then the only logical conclusion is that St. Paul musta screwed up somewhere. Not that we are fallible humans that sometimes have a difficult time following authority. Jesus calls us sheep for a reason. You should try spending some time with sheep, I raise them as a hobby, it shines a whole new light and meaning on Jesus words. Knowing how the human race acts (greed, self want) I never once wondered why the Corinthians were celebrating this kind of supper. Jesus himself says…

John 6:26
26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.

Some people followed Jesus for the free food, why wouldn’t you think it were possible some Corinthians would claim to be Christian for a free meal?

 

[markdris]

And as I said, Paul does not receive his authority from the original apostles. He is an apostle in his own right, his apostolic authority coming from Christ himself, just as the other Twelve did.

There is no apostolic succession involved, as Paul is at the top of the line, just like the Twelve.

I think you might be wrong about that, as least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. I have listened to EWTN about this issue and remember hearing that Paul went to the original Apostles in order to receive his authority. Whether he actually did or not is debated in various circles, as I understand it.

The Catholic Church doesn’t allow people to decide they have been appointed directly by God. It is always subject to Church authority. Anyone can say they have been appointed directly by God, and many do. As I understand it, the Catholic Church considers it apostolic succession only if one can trace his status directly back to the original 12 Apostles. Even when it comes to Mary, everything is subject to Church authority. Many can and do claim Mary appeared to them, but whether an apparition is deemed authentic must be decided by the Church.

Many non-Catholic priests, preachers, and pastors consider themselves appointed directly by God, but you don’t find the Catholic Church acknowledging them as having proper authority to consecrate the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox can trace their authority back to the original 12 Apostles, but as I understand it, the Catholic Church does not acknowledge any valid authority in the ministers of Protestant Churches.

 

[porthos11]

I think you might be wrong about that, as least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. I have listened to EWTN about this issue and remember hearing that Paul went to the original Apostles in order to receive his authority. Whether he actually did or not is debated in various circles, as I understand it.

The Catholic Church doesn’t allow people to decide they have been appointed directly by God. It is always subject to Church authority. Anyone can say they have been appointed directly by God, and many do. As I understand it, the Catholic Church considers it apostolic succession only if one can trace his status directly back to the original 12 Apostles. Even when it comes to Mary, everything is subject to Church authority. Many can and do claim Mary appeared to them, but whether an apparition is deemed authentic must be decided by the Church.

Many non-Catholic priests, preachers, and pastors consider themselves appointed directly by God, but you don’t find the Catholic Church acknowledging them as having proper authority to consecrate the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox can trace their authority back to the original 12 Apostles, but as I understand it, the Catholic Church does not acknowledge any valid authority in the ministers of Protestant Churches.

I am not wrong.

That was the era of public revelation. Today is not. Paul is an apostle in his own right, not a mere bishop. His ordination and mandate comes from Christ himself, and he is at the top of the apostolic chain, just as the other Twelve. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he affirms this himself, that his mandate comes directly from Christ, and the Church has always taken him at his word. To have an issue with Paul’s claim is to have an issue with the Holy Spirit who inspired him to write this.

Nowhere does the doctrine of apostolic succession limit the top of the chain to the Twelve.

 

[markdris]

Like I said the Bible does not tell us. So yes I assume he either received it directly from God or from St. Peter. I think it is a valid assumption, what do you think they discussed for 15 days? Keep in mind when St. Paul was Saul he was a persecutor of Christians. He wasn’t just a persecutor because he was told to, he was because he knew the life of Jesus and knew all the stories already and did not believe. So once he received his revelation of who Jesus really was he would right then know and believe all of the stories were true. Therefor, it is not like St. Peter sat there telling him all of the stories he already knew. So I would think it is safe to assume that they most likely talked about the things Jesus did in private, including the last supper. I would think this is the revelation St. Paul would bring to St. Peter to prove he received his revelation from God.
Okay, I’m starting to think you are just having fun with me now. I am willing to spend all the time you need to go through this, but if you are going to jump to conclusions like this I don’t know where else to go. I honestly can’t see how you can come to the conclusion St. Paul must have been preaching the wrong Gospel. Basically, you are saying because you found some people that can’t follow the correct teaching then the only logical conclusion is that St. Paul musta screwed up somewhere. Not that we are fallible humans that sometimes have a difficult time following authority. Jesus calls us sheep for a reason. You should try spending some time with sheep, I raise them as a hobby, it shines a whole new light and meaning on Jesus words. Knowing how the human race acts (greed, self want) I never once wondered why the Corinthians were celebrating this kind of supper. Jesus himself says…

John 6:26
26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.

Some people followed Jesus for the free food, why wouldn’t you think it were possible some Corinthians would claim to be Christian for a free meal?

You state that Paul knew the life of Jesus and knew all the stories about Jesus. I am not so sure you are right about this. Paul’s Letters do not discuss the life of Jesus and stories about Jesus, nor do they even mention the teachings of Jesus. In fact, historical information about Jesus is conspicuously absent from Paul’s Letters. The absence of such historical information from Paul’s Letters has led some to argue that Paul’s Letters are all about a spiritual Christ and not an historical figure. And just where do you believe Paul would have learned all about the life of Jesus and all of the stories about Jesus if he was not a follower of Jesus? Remember, Paul was a self-proclaimed, God-appointed Apostle who chose not to approach the twelve Apostles to learn the true details of Jesus’ life and the truth of the stories about Jesus. Since Paul was a persecutor of Christ, his version of the stories about Jesus would have been from an entirely different perspective, most likely misinformation. If Jesus appeared to Saul (later Paul) on the road to Damascus and Saul fell to the ground in the manner it is commonly believed, that had to be quite an extraordinary event. It seems to me that one of the first things Saul would have wanted to do is go to the 12 Apostles appointed by Christ to learn the truth about Jesus’ life and all the stories about Jesus and to immerse himself in the teachings of Jesus. Apparently Saul (later Paul), for whatever reason, chose not to do so.

I am not playing with you or having fun with you as you state. Remember, you are the one who suggested that if Paul had been preaching wrongly about the Last Supper for an entire 20 years, it would have gotten back to the original Apostles for correction. So if 20 years is such a long time for wrong preaching to continue, why was Paul having to correct the Corinthians about the Last Supper (1 Corinthians 11, 20-22) 20 years after the crucifixion? You even suggested that 15 days would be like an eternity if we didn’t have all the distractions of modern technology. I am simply pointing out that you are not being consistent.

If the Eucharist back in those early days was even remotely similar to what it is today, no one would be expecting to fill their stomachs, and no one would be getting drunk. One can hardly fill one’s stomach with a wafer of bread, and one can hardly become drunk with a sip of wine (the way the Eucharist is celebrated today), The argument I always hear today for the Church’s position that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is that the Church from the very beginning celebrated the Eucharist just as it is celebrated today, i.e., in a reverent way with the recognition that this is truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 11, 20-22 simply does not support that particular argument. Apparently it was at least 20 years after Christ was crucified before the Eucharist was uniformly celebrated in the reverent way in which it is celebrated today.

 

[MT1926]

The absence of such historical information from Paul’s Letters has led some to argue that Paul’s Letters are all about a spiritual Christ and not an historical figure.

Yes this is usually from that group of people that treat the Bible like an instruction manual. Where in the Bible does it say everything must be contained in the Bible? We believe the Bible was written with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In essence one main author above all of the writers. I see no need for St. Paul to have written historical information, basically a 5th gospel. When we read the Bible we need to keep the understanding that every verse must be read in the context of the paragraph, which must be read in the context of the chapter, which must be read in the context of the entire Bible. No one verse of the Bible can negate another verse.

And just where do you believe Paul would have learned all about the life of Jesus and all of the stories about Jesus if he was not a follower of Jesus? Remember, Paul was a self-proclaimed, God-appointed Apostle who chose not to approach the twelve Apostles to learn the true details of Jesus’ life and the truth of the stories about Jesus.

Ok let’s try this again. Did you read Acts 9? As I said above we need to read a verse of the Bible taking the entire Bible into account. In verse 17 Anani’as tells him he will be filled with the holy spirit. Now look back in Acts 2 to see that when the Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit, giving them power to speak in tongues. Now we go to John 14 and learn that Jesus promises to send the Apsotles another Advocate (the Holy Spirit) that will teach them everything and remind them of what Jesus said. So basically I will once again state that he learned the truth directly from God. Since you seem to think this is impossible for God, I add that anything God didn’t tell him would have most likely been filled in by St. Peter when they met.

Now onto the next question. Why do you think St. Paul chose not to approach the Apostles? Let’s go back to Acts 9. If you still haven’t read it yet please do so now. Verse 26 tells us St. Paul went to Jerusalem, which would be 3 years from conversion according to Galatians 1:18. So at this point we know that St. Paul was preaching the good news for 3 years. We can assume, even though the Bible does not specifically state it, that during these 3 years he did not persecute any Christians and did not stone anyone to death. If we read the rest of verse 26 we see that, even after 3 years of being good, the other disciples in Jerusalem were still afraid of him and would not let him join them. Verse 27 specifically states Barnabas had to take him to the Apostles, which in my mind pretty much gives you the answer to your question. If God did not reveal the truth to St. Paul and simple said go see St. Peter and he will guide you to the truth do you think he would have gotten within a mile of the Apostles? If Barnabas had to take him to the Apostles I am guessing you can’t just walk up and knock on their door and request a private audience with them.

Since Paul was a persecutor of Christ, his version of the stories about Jesus would have been from an entirely different perspective, most likely misinformation.

Agreed, but if you are told 100 misinformed stories about someone and then you find out that he was really the good guy wouldn’t it be pretty simple to correct the stories? The majority of stories that want to change the perspective don’t change the entire stories they either add or omit one detail that totally changes the outcome. Take for instance Mark 14:58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Now we see here the story is the same but they added some words to change the meaning of the verse John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

 

[MT1926]

If Jesus appeared to Saul (later Paul) on the road to Damascus and Saul fell to the ground in the manner it is commonly believed, that had to be quite an extraordinary event. It seems to me that one of the first things Saul would have wanted to do is go to the 12 Apostles appointed by Christ to learn the truth about Jesus’ life and all the stories about Jesus and to immerse himself in the teachings of Jesus. Apparently Saul (later Paul), for whatever reason, chose not to do so.

I think I gave a valid reason in the last post why St. Paul couldn’t have gone directly to see St. Peter. Do you agree this is a logical conclusion?

I am not playing with you or having fun with you as you state. Remember, you are the one who suggested that if Paul had been preaching wrongly about the Last Supper for an entire 20 years, it would have gotten back to the original Apostles for correction.

Do you not agree with this? Do you think it is possible for someone to spread the wrong message for 20 years and it not get back to the Apostles?

So if 20 years is such a long time for wrong preaching to continue, why was Paul having to correct the Corinthians about the Last Supper (1 Corinthians 11, 20-22) 20 years after the crucifixion? You even suggested that 15 days would be like an eternity if we didn’t have all the distractions of modern technology. I am simply pointing out that you are not being consistent.

I don’t have a clue where you are going with this. Just because my statements don’t fit into your false assumptions does not mean I am being inconsistent. Yes if you and I spent 12 hours a day for 15 days studying a subject we both knew the details of and both were passionate to study, I think we would both get an A on the exam on day 16. Now what does that line of thinking have to do with your assumption that the only possible way a fallible human can make a mistake is if they were taught incorrectly to begin with?

If the Eucharist back in those early days was even remotely similar to what it is today, no one would be expecting to fill their stomachs, and no one would be getting drunk. One can hardly fill one’s stomach with a wafer of bread, and one can hardly become drunk with a sip of wine (the way the Eucharist is celebrated today),

I can only give you my opinion on this because I do not know exact details. But I would never assume we celebrate 100% the same as they did back then. From my limited understanding they had no way of making wafers back then, they actually used loaves of unleavened bread, which they broke off a piece and passed around. Do you not think it could be possible that some people would show up just for a free meal?

The argument I always hear today for the Church’s position that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is that the Church from the very beginning celebrated the Eucharist just as it is celebrated today, i.e., in a reverent way with the recognition that this is truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 11, 20-22 simply does not support that particular argument. Apparently it was at least 20 years after Christ was crucified before the Eucharist was uniformly celebrated in the reverent way in which it is celebrated today.

Once again you are coming to an incorrect assumption that just because one group of people needed to be corrected that means everyone must have been taught wrong. How does 1 Corinthians prove that Christians did not celebrate the Eucharist properly until 20 years later? I think the only thing it proves is that St. Paul came across a group of individuals, filled with self want, that decided to turn the Eucharist into something they wanted (a free meal) and no longer something they needed (eternal life).

 

[markdris]

I think I gave a valid reason in the last post why St. Paul couldn’t have gone directly to see St. Peter. Do you agree this is a logical conclusion?

Do you not agree with this? Do you think it is possible for someone to spread the wrong message for 20 years and it not get back to the Apostles?

I don’t have a clue where you are going with this. Just because my statements don’t fit into your false assumptions does not mean I am being inconsistent. Yes if you and I spent 12 hours a day for 15 days studying a subject we both knew the details of and both were passionate to study, I think we would both get an A on the exam on day 16. Now what does that line of thinking have to do with your assumption that the only possible way a fallible human can make a mistake is if they were taught incorrectly to begin with?

I can only give you my opinion on this because I do not know exact details. But I would never assume we celebrate 100% the same as they did back then. From my limited understanding they had no way of making wafers back then, they actually used loaves of unleavened bread, which they broke off a piece and passed around. Do you not think it could be possible that some people would show up just for a free meal?
Once again you are coming to an incorrect assumption that just because one group of people needed to be corrected that means everyone must have been taught wrong. How does 1 Corinthians prove that Christians did not celebrate the Eucharist properly until 20 years later? I think the only thing it proves is that St. Paul came across a group of individuals, filled with self want, that decided to turn the Eucharist into something they wanted (a free meal) and no longer something they needed (eternal life).

What you have said in your two posts makes a lot of sense, and I appreciate your taking the time to go through it. Recently, as I have been thinking about it, it seems to me that there may have been a major disconnect between the original Apostle group and Paul. Some say that Paul really started Christianity as we know it today.

 

[Randy_Carson]

When did the bread and wine become his body and blood?
To express the question in a more self effacing manner:
At what instant did it become his body and blood?

Transubstantiation occurred at the precise moment when Jesus said, “This is my ____” - once with the bread and once with the cup of wine.

FWIW, the ordination of the Apostles as priests occurred when He said, “Do this”, because without being priests, they could not obey that command.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You state that Paul knew the life of Jesus and knew all the stories about Jesus. I am not so sure you are right about this. Paul’s Letters do not discuss the life of Jesus and stories about Jesus, nor do they even mention the teachings of Jesus. In fact, historical information about Jesus is conspicuously absent from Paul’s Letters. The absence of such historical information from Paul’s Letters has led some to argue that Paul’s Letters are all about a spiritual Christ and not an historical figure.

And this may well be because others had already written accounts of Jesus’ TEACHINGS. I contend that Matthew, Mark and Luke were written quite early, and Luke specifically tells us that others had already written accounts before he wrote his gospel (cf. Luke 1:1-3)

Doesn’t it seem reasonable and prudent that Paul left the biographical material to those who had lived with Jesus for three years (or interviewed those who did) while focusing his own writings on the theology and pastoral issues?

And just where do you believe Paul would have learned all about the life of Jesus and all of the stories about Jesus if he was not a follower of Jesus? Remember, Paul was a self-proclaimed, God-appointed Apostle who chose not to approach the twelve Apostles to learn the true details of Jesus’ life and the truth of the stories about Jesus. Since Paul was a persecutor of Christ, his version of the stories about Jesus would have been from an entirely different perspective, most likely misinformation.

Where??? This is obvious enough, I think. In the book of Galatians (ca. AD 55), Paul reported that after his conversion (ca. AD 35-36), he traveled to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles on two occasions. The first trip occurred within three years of his conversion (ca. AD 38-39) (cf. Gal. 1:15-19) and the second 14 years after his conversion (ca. AD 52-53) (cf. Gal. 2:1). Regarding the first visit, Paul wrote:

Galatians 1:17-19
17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

What do you suppose that Peter and Paul were discussing during those 15 days?

I can’t help thinking that Paul was grilling Peter for all kinds of details about the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.

What would you have discussed with Peter under those circumstances?

If Jesus appeared to Saul (later Paul) on the road to Damascus and Saul fell to the ground in the manner it is commonly believed, that had to be quite an extraordinary event. It seems to me that one of the first things Saul would have wanted to do is go to the 12 Apostles appointed by Christ to learn the truth about Jesus’ life and all the stories about Jesus and to immerse himself in the teachings of Jesus. Apparently Saul (later Paul), for whatever reason, chose not to do so.

Correct. Paul was probably reeling from the experience. Not to mention the fact that he would not have been accepted by the Christians OR the Jews in Jerusalem. The believers would not have trusted him; the Jews would have thought him a traitor.

I am not playing with you or having fun with you as you state. Remember, you are the one who suggested that if Paul had been preaching wrongly about the Last Supper for an entire 20 years, it would have gotten back to the original Apostles for correction.

Peter and Paul were both in Jerusalem for the Council in Acts 15 around AD 45. Remember, this Council was held as a result of a conflict between Peter and Paul over circumcision that had been festering for awhile. So, yeah, I think their paths crossed on more than one occasion in the first couple of decades.

So if 20 years is such a long time for wrong preaching to continue, why was Paul having to correct the Corinthians about the Last Supper (1 Corinthians 11, 20-22) 20 years after the crucifixion? You even suggested that 15 days would be like an eternity if we didn’t have all the distractions of modern technology. I am simply pointing out that you are not being consistent.

The problem with the Corinthian Church was not a question of the Eucharistic doctrine but about the behavior of some members attending the mass. IOW, the problem wasn’t that the Corinthians had been taught incorrectly; they had simply begun to behave incorrectly. Two very different things.

If the Eucharist back in those early days was even remotely similar to what it is today, no one would be expecting to fill their stomachs, and no one would be getting drunk. One can hardly fill one’s stomach with a wafer of bread, and one can hardly become drunk with a sip of wine (the way the Eucharist is celebrated today), The argument I always hear today for the Church’s position that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is that the Church from the very beginning celebrated the Eucharist just as it is celebrated today, i.e., in a reverent way with the recognition that this is truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 11, 20-22 simply does not support that particular argument. Apparently it was at least 20 years after Christ was crucified before the Eucharist was uniformly celebrated in the reverent way in which it is celebrated today.

Apparently, the Corinthians were doing two things - celebrating the Eucharist and having a pot-luck dinner - all at the same time. I would argue that this was not something that they learned from Paul (since he objected to it after hearing of the practice) but an inappropriate innovation which did NOT conform to the reverent manner in which the Eucharist had been celebrated from the beginning.

 

[MT1926]

What you have said in your two posts makes a lot of sense, and I appreciate your taking the time to go through it. Recently, as I have been thinking about it, it seems to me that there may have been a major disconnect between the original Apostle group and Paul.

Your welcome. And I appreciate you taking them time to read what I had to say.

I’m not so sure on the disconnect though. From our point of view it might appear that way, but from God’s point of view I’m sure there was no disconnect. As mentioned in Acts 9:15 “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles”. I can only imagine at that time God felt St. Paul was the best way for him to reach the Gentiles, since Peter was a Jew and there was still much tension between Jews and Gentiles at that time.

Some say that Paul really started Christianity as we know it today.

I’ve heard this before but it really just doesn’t make sense to me if you really think it through. I think I remember the term for this is “The Pauline Gospel”. Basically what happens is this group of people reads the Bible in light of what St. Paul has to say in his writings. The reason this doesn’t make any sense is because the only way their interpretations of St. Paul’s writing can balance out the rest of the Bible is to take something straight forward that Jesus says and bend it and twist it to make it line up with St. Paul. As I mentioned earlier the Bible can not contradict itself. Everything has to flow together before we can come to a final decision on what the verse means. Even though it doesn’t work this way either, from a common sense standpoint wouldn’t it be smarter to twist something St. Paul says in his writings to fit what Jesus says in the gospels?

Let me try and think of an example. Ok here is one that I was hit with not to long ago. Let’s take a few passages this guy used from St. Paul. Now these are his interpretations.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. He basically says “this passage says the purpose of God’s moral law is to bring about the knowledge of sin in those who are under the law (the ones not yet saved).” Once they put Faith in Jesus they have become saved, which takes us to another writing of St. Paul’s…

Galatians 3:24 So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. Now when he added this verse to the first verse he comes to the conclusion…“we are no longer bound by the Law” From here he drives it home by saying…“God’s Law here in Romans as well as Galatians refers to the whole Moral Law, which finds its roots in the 10 commandments”. Basically what he is saying is St. Paul is telling him he is no longer bound by the ten commandments. He finishes by saying “My works (good or bad) will not play a role in my justification. God will not judge me on my works.”

Very dangerous stuff here. He basically took his “Pauline Gospel” and interpreted it the way it suits his tradition at which point he basically has to throw the Gospels out the door.

So now the hard part what do we do with the words that came directly from Jesus.

Matthew 19:17 If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

I’m thinking Jesus didn’t get the memo here, didn’t St. Paul say we don’t have to keep the commandments once we are saved?

Matthew 10:22
and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be*saved.

What’s Jesus talking about with enduring to the end. Didn’t that guy tell me St. Paul says there is nothing he has to do to keep his salvation, cause God won’t judge him on his works?

There are many many more words from Christ that must be twisted to fit into the Pauline Gospels. They misinterpret the Word of God in light of St. Paul’s writings to disprove the necessity of Baptism, to say the Eucharist is symbolic, to say we don’t need Priests, or the Pope or Confession. To say all we need is sola scriptura, sola fide, etc. I could go on and on. But isn’t just one example of having to twist what Jesus says one to many?

Thanks again, I am really enjoying this discussion, it has strengthening my faith in these difficult times.

God Bless

 

[markdris]

Your welcome. And I appreciate you taking them time to read what I had to say.

I’m not so sure on the disconnect though. From our point of view it might appear that way, but from God’s point of view I’m sure there was no disconnect. As mentioned in Acts 9:15 “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles”. I can only imagine at that time God felt St. Paul was the best way for him to reach the Gentiles, since Peter was a Jew and there was still much tension between Jews and Gentiles at that time.
I’ve heard this before but it really just doesn’t make sense to me if you really think it through. I think I remember the term for this is “The Pauline Gospel”. Basically what happens is this group of people reads the Bible in light of what St. Paul has to say in his writings. The reason this doesn’t make any sense is because the only way their interpretations of St. Paul’s writing can balance out the rest of the Bible is to take something straight forward that Jesus says and bend it and twist it to make it line up with St. Paul. As I mentioned earlier the Bible can not contradict itself. Everything has to flow together before we can come to a final decision on what the verse means. Even though it doesn’t work this way either, from a common sense standpoint wouldn’t it be smarter to twist something St. Paul says in his writings to fit what Jesus says in the gospels?

Let me try and think of an example. …

…
…

Matthew 19:17 If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

I’m thinking Jesus didn’t get the memo here, didn’t St. Paul say we don’t have to keep the commandments once we are saved?

Matthew 10:22
and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be*saved.

What’s Jesus talking about with enduring to the end. Didn’t that guy tell me St. Paul says there is nothing he has to do to keep his salvation, cause God won’t judge him on his works?

There are many many more words from Christ that must be twisted to fit into the Pauline Gospels. They misinterpret the Word of God in light of St. Paul’s writings to disprove the necessity of Baptism, to say the Eucharist is symbolic, to say we don’t need Priests, or the Pope or Confession. To say all we need is sola scriptura, sola fide, etc. I could go on and on. But isn’t just one example of having to twist what Jesus says one to many?

Thanks again, I am really enjoying this discussion, it has strengthening my faith in these difficult times.

God Bless

Thanks for your response.

Paul’s writings do sound like “faith alone”, the needed faith being in Christ’s blood and sacrifice on Calvary’s cross as full payment for the sins of those who accept Him as Lord and Savior. Some call this the “Message of the Cross”. Paul seems to preach the Message of the Cross.

On the other hand, you basically do not find Jesus preaching the Message of the Cross. It seems as though, for the most part, Paul came up with the Message of the Cross. Jesus talks about loving God with your whole heart and loving your neighbor as yourself. That’s the way Jesus pretty much sums up the Ten Commandments and His teachings, at least as I understand it.

The closest I find Jesus talking about the Message of the Cross is the Last Supper in the synoptic Gospels, where Jesus uses words referring to the covenant in His blood. Jesus does not travel around Galilee preaching, “Please sacrifice me as an atonement for your sins”, which pretty much would have been the Message of the Cross.

The above is the reason I see a disconnect between the teachings of Jesus and His twelve Apostles on the one hand and Paul on the other.

I have read that the early Church at Jerusalem did not celebrate the Eucharist, which has led me to ask whether those who challenge the historicity of the Last Supper may have some evidence to support their challenge. If the original twelve Apostles had been instructed by Jesus to commemorate the Last Supper in remembrance of Him, why would they have not done so? I understand the first written account of the Last Supper is 1 Corinthians 11. It strikes me as odd that the Last Supper was “revealed” to Paul directly by God if it was an historical event which the twelve Apostles had been celebrating from the very beginning following Christ’s death. I have read where some say that Paul invented the Eucharist. The synoptic Gospels were written after Paul’s Letters, leading some to conclude that the synoptic Gospel writers copied the Last Supper from Paul’s writings.

 

[MT1926]

Thanks for your response.

Paul’s writings do sound like “faith alone”, the needed faith being in Christ’s blood and sacrifice on Calvary’s cross as full payment for the sins of those who accept Him as Lord and Savior. Some call this the “Message of the Cross”. Paul seems to preach the Message of the Cross.

St. Paul’s writings can sound a lot like “faith alone” when we do not take all of his writings into context of his other writings as well as the writings of the entire Bible. Let’s look at some verses.

Romans 3:28: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.” Romans 4:5 is another: “And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”

These verses sure do seem to point to “faith alone” St. Paul himself says “does not work”. But to get to the heart of what he is saying and understand the meaning we need to look at the context and to his other writings as well as the entire Bible.

If we back up to Romans 2:6-8 St. Paul makes it abundantly clear that good works are necessary for attaining eternal life: “For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.”

If we take Romans 3 in context we can see that St. Paul was dealing with “Judaizers”. Men that taught we had to keep the Mosaic Law and be circumcised before we could enter the New Covenant with Christ. Therefor, “works of law” in Romans 3 does not mean the same as “good works” in Romans 2. When read in context of just St. Paul’s writings we come to the conclusion that he is not preaching “faith alone”.

I’m not real familiar with the terminology “Message of the Cross”, but once again we have to be careful here. When you say “full payment for the sins of those who accept Him as Lord and Savior”, this can not mean “faith alone”. “Full payment” doesn’t mean our sins are forgiven, it just means full payment is available to us, if we have faith and confess our sins. The only way we can think our “faith alone” gives us this full payment is to ignore the rest of the Bible. Here’s 4 verses that must be twisted somehow to think confessing our sins is not necessary.

Let’s start with the words of our Lord Jesus Christ when he instituted the sacrament of reconciliation:
John 20:21Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.23If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
Jesus is pretty clear here when he says “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven”, that we must ask, the Apostles and their successors(our priest), for forgiveness. Some people will try to twist Christ’s words and say he only says we have to ask him for forgiveness through our faith as St. Paul tells us. The fact that we have to confess our sins even directly to God alone debunks “faith alone” because confessing is a verb which is something we have to do. So some will say St. Paul says our initial moment of faith forgives all sins, past , present and future, regardless of confession. However, they are totally skipping what Christ says next, “if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”. How can a priest retain a sin if you and I can take that sin directly to Christ, either before of after he retains it?
We can also see here that St. James tells us that healing occurs through confession of sins. James 5:16Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.
If that isn’t enough, even St. Paul tells us that it is not by “faith alone”.
2 Corinthians 2:10 Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ. Why would St. Paul need to preach forgiving each other if we can take it directly to God?
2 Corinthians 5:18*All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. Here St. Paul tells us that there is an actual ministry of reconciliation (he is basically referring to John 20:21-23), why would we need a ministry of reconciliation if we are saved by “faith alone”?

You covered a lot in your last post so I am going to stop here and start another post to go over your other points.

 

[markdris]

I’m not real familiar with the terminology “Message of the Cross”, but once again we have to be careful here. When you say “full payment for the sins of those who accept Him as Lord and Savior”, this can not mean “faith alone”. “Full payment” doesn’t mean our sins are forgiven, it just means full payment is available to us, if we have faith and confess our sins. The only way we can think our “faith alone” gives us this full payment is to ignore the rest of the Bible. Here’s 4 verses that must be twisted somehow to think confessing our sins is not necessary.

Probably I should not have included the word “alone”, since those who teach that salvation is by faith do often teach that one must constantly confess his or her sins. It’s just that they do not believe the confession must be to a priest.

Also, I do not believe those who preach salvation by faith teach that one need not obey the Commandments, at least nine of them. Sometimes they say that honoring the Sabbath is not a moral law and therefore need not be obeyed.

 

[MT1926]

On the other hand, you basically do not find Jesus preaching the Message of the Cross. It seems as though, for the most part, Paul came up with the Message of the Cross. Jesus talks about loving God with your whole heart and loving your neighbor as yourself. That’s the way Jesus pretty much sums up the Ten Commandments and His teachings, at least as I understand it.

The closest I find Jesus talking about the Message of the Cross is the Last Supper in the synoptic Gospels, where Jesus uses words referring to the covenant in His blood. Jesus does not travel around Galilee preaching, “Please sacrifice me as an atonement for your sins”, which pretty much would have been the Message of the Cross.

The above is the reason I see a disconnect between the teachings of Jesus and His twelve Apostles on the one hand and Paul on the other.

Ok let’s see where we can go with this. First, off Jesus wouldn’t be specifically preaching the “Message of the Cross” since it hasn’t happened yet. The few times he alludes to it in scripture we see that the Apostles don’t understand what he is saying so it wouldn’t make sense for him to be preaching “Please sacrifice me as an atonement for your sins”, no one would understand.

Also, I think we need to try and stay away from the trap of Jesus and the 12 OR St. Paul. Since the entire Bible is written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I would say it is Jesus, the 12 and St. Paul. Jesus himself tells us that it can’t be “OR” it has to be both.

Matthew 12:25 Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand;

Until the time of the reformation no one had preached a Pauline Gospel, now that we have some people thinking this way we have quite a bit of division.

That being said Jesus doesn’t just preach a message of “loving thy neighbor”. Just off the top of my head Jesus tells us:

Luke 9:23
And he said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
John 10:15
as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and** I lay down my life for the sheep**.
John 10:17
For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.

If I had more time I am sure I could find more. However, I don’t think it is necessary. St. John tells us 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. The writers of the Gospels were writing to particular audiences and trying to convey the parts of Jesus life that would be most pertinent to groups they were Evangelizing. To say this book of the Bible says this but it is not repeated somewhere else isn’t the best way to decide if something is valid.

I wish I could be more helpful here but I really haven’t looked into the “Message of the Cross” that much.

I think the main thing we need to always remember is that we need to read the Bible as a whole, not just pick out the verses that seem to tell us what we want to hear.

 

[MT1926]

I have read that the early Church at Jerusalem did not celebrate the Eucharist, which has led me to ask whether those who challenge the historicity of the Last Supper may have some evidence to support their challenge. If the original twelve Apostles had been instructed by Jesus to commemorate the Last Supper in remembrance of Him, why would they have not done so? I understand the first written account of the Last Supper is 1 Corinthians 11. It strikes me as odd that the Last Supper was “revealed” to Paul directly by God if it was an historical event which the twelve Apostles had been celebrating from the very beginning following Christ’s death. I have read where some say that Paul invented the Eucharist. The synoptic Gospels were written after Paul’s Letters, leading some to conclude that the synoptic Gospel writers copied the Last Supper from Paul’s writings.

I’m not really sure where to go with this. I would be happy to read the articles you read about “the early Church at Jerusalem did not celebrate the Eucharist” and give you my opinion. Are they factually based or is it based on someone giving their opinion based on being unable to find clear evidence that they did? I think the lack of evidence either way does not really tell us anything. Some people like to say if it was of such importance wouldn’t their being writings pertaining to the Eucharist from the beginning? Being a business man and having a never ending task list my mind tends to work in the other direction. I don’t keep a list of the tasks I do on a daily basis, that I know by heart, I make a list of the uncommon things that I might forget. I think the Eucharistic celebration would be one of these common tasks that wouldn’t need to be written down. That is until the Corinthians started abusing it. At which time St. Paul had to rebuke them and give them in writing the way it should be done. I do the same thing with my kids every year. They have the exact same tasks on the farm every summer. I tell them what to do and it always goes well until July. I think the one month since shutting their brains off on the last day of school starts to take a toll. Anyway, it never fails about the 3rd week of July they start bickering over who does what when, the animals start getting fed late or feedings get skipped because the other thought they were going to do it. Every year I end up having to create a flow chart with who does what and when and they have to initial it every time they do their chores. Fallible human beings

 

[markdris]

I’m not really sure where to go with this. I would be happy to read the articles you read about “the early Church at Jerusalem did not celebrate the Eucharist” and give you my opinion. Are they factually based or is it based on someone giving their opinion based on being unable to find clear evidence that they did? I think the lack of evidence either way does not really tell us anything. Some people like to say if it was of such importance wouldn’t their being writings pertaining to the Eucharist from the beginning?

Here is a link you might find of interest, which references arguments which were made in a book:

community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/59723/13413229/Did_Paul_invent_the_Eucharist

 

[MT1926]

Probably I should not have included the word “alone”, since those who teach that salvation is by faith do often teach that one must constantly confess his or her sins. It’s just that they do not believe the confession must be to a priest.

Yeah I wasn’t sure which way you were going with this. That is why I tried to cover both groups. Some believe you don’t have to confess and others believe you don’t have to go to the priest. Was what I said above understandable. Personally I don’t see how anyone can think we don’t need to go to a priest in light of

John 20:21*Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.23If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

As I said in the earlier post how could Jesus give someone the ability to retain my sins if I can take them directly to God?

Also, I do not believe those who preach salvation by faith teach that one need not obey the Commandments, at least nine of them. Sometimes they say that honoring the Sabbath is not a moral law and therefore need not be obeyed.

The majority don’t but believe it or not I have run into some of the “Once Saved/Always Saved” crowd that teach that St. Paul’s teaching we are saved by faith not by works of law includes the moral law which is the 10 commandments. Therefor, breaking the 10 commandments will not be held against them.

 

[MT1926]

Here is a link you might find of interest, which references arguments which were made in a book:

community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/59723/13413229/Did_Paul_invent_the_Eucharist

Thanks. Yeah it was a summary of arguments from a book. Pretty much anyone can have an argument these days. Whether it is a viable one or not is another thing. I’ve had some interesting discussions where someone that thought he was perfectly valid by using his opinions from a past argument to validate his arguments he was currently presenting. I can see where you got a lot of your confusion. I think the guy that wrote the book is pretty confused he pretty much does the same thing. He uses his opinions about verses to form other opinions as well as opinions about what he thinks the Bible is to form his arguments.

1. The idea is not Jewish ( = Jesus wouldn’t have taught it).
   I would recommend Scott Hahn’s talk the Forth Cup he goes into detail how the last supper is the New Testament fulfillment of the Passover Meal.
   stpaulcenter.com/media/audio/the-fourth-cup
2. The earliest text that mentions the Eucharist is Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:23-30) We already talked about this I hope my past posts were a help. But I did want to point out that it is a stretch for the author to say the St. Paul stating “For I received from the Lord” equates to “Paul is clearly stating that the Eucharist was founded on a revelation that he himself received by God.” First, St. Paul never says “For I solely received” which could mean that someone else (the Apostles) received it before him. That is unless we believe Jesus was incapable of giving it to anyone else.

A lot of your questions make sense now. However, you must realize that the author of the book is basing all of his future assumptions solely on the assumption that St. Paul’s revelation is a different/exclusive revelation. Which is mentioned nowhere in the Bible.

I like what the author says here: “They cannot be from some common source since Paul explicitly says that he did not receive them from any source but by personal revelation.” Wasn’t God the source of teaching for St. Paul and Jesus the source for the Apostles. Unless we are going to deny the Trinity I would call that a pretty common source.

1. It is drawn from mystery religion.
   I would point you back to Scott Hahn’s talk. The offering of Bread and one is quite biblical and not just a ritual as the author claims. He needs to read Hebrews 5,6 &7
2. Jesus’ earliest followers in Jerusalem did not practice it
   I’m not a real fan of people who like to hammer points by saying “No mention of an Eucharist”. They treat the Bible like an instruction manual, like every single think we believe and the exact terminology of that belief needs to be specifically stated in the Bible or it is not true. I like to point out to them that Bible doesn’t work that way it is a story of our salvation that needs to be interpreted with Christ’s authority (the Church) or we could easily find the incorrect information. I tell them it is not a self help book. They usually respond with where is the word Pope in the Bible.