To All Protestants

[heisenburg]

This is a very simple question, and is not meant to be inflamitory. It is out of pure curiosity that I ask this question.

I noticed that when you guys quote scripture, you will almost always got to one of Pauls letters. While I am in no way shape or form saying pauls letters are bad, I dont here refrences to the gospels NEARLY as much. Ild sayi its probably 80/20. Of the remaining 20 odd percent that si from the gospel, a very very large percentage of them is jsut one or two verses (like 3:16)

Why do you feel the need to use Pauls word so frequently and Jesus’s word less frequently.

Again I am not trying to bode you into an arguement. I am geniunely curious…

To you in Christ

 

[ahimsaman72]

heisenburg:

This is a very simple question, and is not meant to be inflamitory. It is out of pure curiosity that I ask this question.

I noticed that when you guys quote scripture, you will almost always got to one of Pauls letters. While I am in no way shape or form saying pauls letters are bad, I dont here refrences to the gospels NEARLY as much. Ild sayi its probably 80/20. Of the remaining 20 odd percent that si from the gospel, a very very large percentage of them is jsut one or two verses (like 3:16)

Why do you feel the need to use Pauls word so frequently and Jesus’s word less frequently.

Again I am not trying to bode you into an arguement. I am geniunely curious…

To you in Christ

There are really two intertwined reasons for the reliance on more of Paul’s letters.

1. His letters account for me material than any other writer in the NT
2. He spoke about faith, law, justification and grace more than any other writer

Given Paul’s extensive learning he was able to write deeper and more comprehensively than the other disciples. Remember, most of the 12 were basic, rustic people who had no formal training (that can be determined anyway). So, it’s natural that this learned man would write better material.

Peace…

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

Given Paul’s extensive learning he was able to write deeper and more comprehensively than the other disciples.

Yes. And for that reason, one must be very careful how Paul’s epistles are interpreted. Peter gives us some insight into this:

2 Peter 3:15-18

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity. Amen.

Peace,
Mickey

 

[Philthy]

ahimsaman72:

There are really two intertwined reasons for the reliance on more of Paul’s letters.

1. His letters account for me material than any other writer in the NT
2. He spoke about faith, law, justification and grace more than any other writer

Given Paul’s extensive learning he was able to write deeper and more comprehensively than the other disciples. Remember, most of the 12 were basic, rustic people who had no formal training (that can be determined anyway). So, it’s natural that this learned man would write better material.

Peace…

I agree that this would be the typical response from our Protestant friends and it seems reasonable. It effectively says that Pauls letters constitute a better source of understanding than the gospels - which is OK - but it leaves us with the nagging question of why, if that is true, did God “waste” so much time with recording the Gospels?

Phil

 

[Melchior]

heisenburg:

This is a very simple question, and is not meant to be inflamitory. It is out of pure curiosity that I ask this question.

I noticed that when you guys quote scripture, you will almost always got to one of Pauls letters. While I am in no way shape or form saying pauls letters are bad, I dont here refrences to the gospels NEARLY as much. Ild sayi its probably 80/20. Of the remaining 20 odd percent that si from the gospel, a very very large percentage of them is jsut one or two verses (like 3:16)

Why do you feel the need to use Pauls word so frequently and Jesus’s word less frequently.

Again I am not trying to bode you into an arguement. I am geniunely curious…

To you in Christ

This has not been my experience. I have known Protestants that quote liberally from the gospels. But please remember the most obvious answer. St. Paul wrote most of the New Testament.

Mel

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Melchior:

This has not been my experience. I have known Protestants that quote liberally from the gospels. But please remember the most obvious answer. St. Paul wrote most of the New Testament.

Mel

The problem is not about writing more. Pauls letters were just that, letters, they held many assumptions, that the people he was talking to were establihsed local churches with members founded on the basics, eg OT, life of Christ, Sacraments, etc. Thats why when Paul writes he has the time to go into detail, he doesnt have to start from scratch each and every time.

The problem is when People read Paul outside the context of the words/teachings of Jesus. When read outside the contex of the gospel accounts (and Acts) Paul’s letters lose a lot of meaning.

 

[Melchior]

Catholic Dude:

The problem is not about writing more. Pauls letters were just that, letters, they held many assumptions, that the people he was talking to were establihsed local churches with members founded on the basics, eg OT, life of Christ, Sacraments, etc. Thats why when Paul writes he has the time to go into detail, he doesnt have to start from scratch each and every time.

The problem is when People read Paul outside the context of the words/teachings of Jesus. When read outside the contex of the gospel accounts (and Acts) Paul’s letters lose a lot of meaning.

No argument here, CD.

Mel

 

[YADA]

Hello, just thought I would add some musings…

Do you all ahve the red letter edition? You know the one where all of Jesus’ words are in red. Kidding aside. Most of us will defer to scripture where we think scripture will ‘catch our backs!’

St. Paul’s letters are some of the earliest Christian writings that made it into the “Canon of the Church”. The other disciples, those that actually walked with Jesus befoer his passion, did not write the Gospels. They were written later, as the disciples and then their first followers began to die off. The new testament scriptures (as was noted in an earlier post) are the writings that came from a community of believers for a community of believers. The Church existed before any of the writings. The Church existed before St Paul. As Saul, Paul first persecuted the Church before his conversion. The Hebrew scriptures existed and the scriptures refered to in the New Testament are those Hebrew texts.

Because the scriptures (Epistles and Gospels) are a work of the believing community, they express the beliefs and faith of that community. They are very important. We believe that they are inspired by God, but they do not constitute the entire deposit of faith. Scripture even testifies to that in the reference that “all the books of the world could not contain all that Jesus did” to paraphrase. It is the Church who gifts the world with scripture, written, protected and passed on faithfully to us. The Canon did not create the Church.

 

[Magicsilence]

Melchior:

This has not been my experience. I have known Protestants that quote liberally from the gospels. But please remember the most obvious answer. St. Paul wrote most of the New Testament.

Mel

Not true.

He wrote about 40% of it.

The Gospels + Acts go from 1 - 196

Epistles from 196 - 319

Revelation from 319 - 339.

Paul writes 125 pages out of 339 which in my calculator brings up 36.87% percent.

It is definetly NOT the bulk of the NT.

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[Gene_C]

Hi Yada,

You said: “The other disciples, those that actually walked with Jesus befoer his passion, did not write the Gospels.”

ME: This is a school of though not absolute fact. We have strong historical evidence in our Tradition that: Peter dictated the first Gospel to Mark, who put it under his name (or that Mark wrote it after his martyrdom from memory: that Matthew, who had written a collection of sayings of Jesus in Aramaic or Hebrew, then went back and rewrote his sayings into a narrative using almost 90% of Mark’s (Peter’s) Gospel; that Luke, a companion of Paul, but not an original disciple, took both Matthew and Mark, and other oral and written traditions, plus interviews of his one (probably with the Blessed Mother, at least) and wrote his Gospel; and finally John, who tradition/history tells us lived to about 100 A.D., wrote his mystical Gospel.

The Synoptics plus Acts were most likely written by the time Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome in the mid 60’s A.D… In fact, most of the NT was written before 70 A.D. Some try to make the claim that ALL of the NT was written before 70 A.D., but I think the historical evidence is strong that John wrote his documents later in the first century.

This theory of a community-written Gospel(s) is a favorite of those who don’t hold to the Divine Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. These are mostly from the Jesus Seminar. They believe that the miracles and references to His Divinity were worked in by the “communities” that wrote the Gospels. That is why you have to be careful about these theories.

It might also be helpful to refer to Dei Verbum, a document of VII.

Peace,

Gene

 

[Gene_C]

Hi again Yada,

I thought I would post the relevant sections from Dei Verbum:

1. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.
   The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
2. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).

Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth.

The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.

For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).

Hope this helps.

Peace,
Gene

 

[Melchior]

Magicsilence:

Not true.

He wrote about 40% of it.

The Gospels + Acts go from 1 - 196

Epistles from 196 - 319

Revelation from 319 - 339.

Paul writes 125 pages out of 339 which in my calculator brings up 36.87% percent.

It is definetly NOT the bulk of the NT.

In Christ.

Andre.

How about this then: St. Paul wrote more of the New Testament (and entire Bible for that matter) than any other individual writer of scripture. And he certainly wrote the bulk of didactic teaching in the NT.

 

[YADA]

Gene C,

I do not take exception to anything you say. I am definately not a Jesus Seminar person. I hold a MA from two Catholic Colleges (Joint program) and have studied scripture. That the Gospels were written by the Christian Community is not something that denies the inspiration of Holy Scriptures. Perhaps you took my light hearted remark about the red letter edition for something I did not mean.

We understand authorship different today than the writers of our New Testament. You are right that there are various schools of thought. The way I think of it is there are large schools with huge faculties and student bodies and small schools with small faculties and smaller classes. As a Catholic, we share the same respect for the Gospels. We share the same deposit of faith. The Gospels (the Good News) hold a very high place of honor in the Church. An Dei Verbum is a wonderful witness to that fact more people should read and study.

I have never heard any Catholic before take exception to the idea that our Scriptures (especially the New Testament) are an out pouring of the beliefs and faith of a community of believers, the Church. Scriptures are a gift to the world. The Church through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote the various books, preserved them, safe guarding them and hands them on to us today.

I do not see any thing in Dei Verbum or any teaching of the Church that denies that reality. Even the celebration of Mass in its two fold Liturgy of Word and Eucharist gives testimony to the importance of the Word to the Church.

As for who wrote exactly what and when there is much debate and uncertainty. Did Paul write all of the lewtters attributed to him? Which letter came first. Did Peter dictate a Gospel, what is the Book of Q, etc. My point was that the Church predated any and all New Testament writings. The writings were the work of Christians (the Apostles or their followers, Paul, Luke, etc.).

Tradition speaks to some of these, not to others. If a disciple of Peter’s, put pen to paper and faithfully wrote those stories and teachings that Peter taught about Jesus or Peter dictated the Gospel word for word to him is not a matter that we can know with certainty. Both are valid methods of handing on the faith and neither denies “Divine Inspiration.” Both can be in harmony with paragrah 19 as they both “faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven.” Being of ‘Apostolic Origin’ and being authored and personnaly written (or dictated) by a specific Apostle are not necessarity the same.

I was not advocating for or against any particular theology or school of thought. Except one that would say that the New Testament, fell from the sky, the Christian Church was formed and the sole authority is this book which encapsulates the entirety of Christian faith and practice for everyone to read and understand.

At any rate, Gene, we are on the same page! PAX

 

[SolaChristo]

Am I right to assume that many of you are saying Pauls writtings are not inspired?

 

[RobNY]

SolaChristo:

Am I right to assume that many of you are saying Pauls writtings are not inspired?

I would say not. Where did you get that idea from?

 

[SolaChristo]

OK, thats why I asked.

 

[RyanL]

Of course we believe St. Paul’s writings are inspired…just probably not for the same reason Protestants do.

Find out more here: Proving Inspiration.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Melchior:

How about this then: St. Paul wrote more of the New Testament (and entire Bible for that matter) than any other individual writer of scripture. And he certainly wrote the bulk of didactic teaching in the NT.

No argument here, he wrote more of NT than anyone.

 

[Tonks40]

SolaChristo:

Am I right to assume that many of you are saying Pauls writtings are not inspired?

No, I think what people are trying to say is that don’t bank all of your beliefs on quantity, instead of quality.

 

[hurst]

YADA:

…
I have never heard any Catholic before take exception to the idea that our Scriptures (especially the New Testament) are an out pouring of the beliefs and faith of a community of believers, the Church.

From what I have learned, the Church explicitly teaches that the Apostle Matthew authored the Gospel of Matthew, and not some anonymous Christian at a later time. Likewise, Mark is the actual author of Mark, Luke is the actual author of Luke, and John is the actual author of John. These and other similar judgments about authorship were issued from the Pontifical Biblical Commission when it was still part of the teaching arm of the Church.

YADA:

I do not see any thing in Dei Verbum or any teaching of the Church that denies that reality.

Is not Dei Verbum simply reaffirming what the Church has always taught, and phrasing it in a more colloquial form? Then nothing has changed. Thus, it must be interpreted in light of past Church teaching.

As such, we must reject such things as the very notion of the “Book of Q”, which is a theory based on the assertion, contrary to Church teaching, that the Gospels were assembled after the fact from other pre-existing sources.

But it must be said that the Church allows research to attempt to resolve difficult questions.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission desires to promote biblical studies by assuring to them the most complete liberty within the limits of the traditional teaching of the Church. This liberty has been proclaimed in explicit terms by the present Pope in his Encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu: “The Catholic exegete ought not by any manner of means to debar himself from taking in hand, and that repeatedly, the difficult questions which have found no solution up to the present time in an attempt to find a well-founded explanation in perfect harmony with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with that of biblical inerrancy, and at the same time capable of fully satisfying the certain conclusions of the secular sciences. The labours of these worthy workers in the vineyard of the Lord deserve to be judged not only with equity and justice, but with perfect charity; and this is a point which all others sons of the Church should bear in mind. It is their duty to avoid that most imprudent zeal which considers it an obligation to attack or suspect whatever is new”, Acta Apostolicae Sedis (1943) 319.

I am not a doctor of the Church, but I share these things which I have come across because it seems relevant to the discussion.

My point is that, if these “schools of thought” are allowed to float around, it is not because there is much uncertainty on the Church’s part. It is rather because it is tolerated to give these researchers breathing room to work things out. Many of these theories actually are contrary to Church teaching, so it is certain that the theories are wrong. But in allowing them to exist they serve as intermediaries to the next theoretical conception to adjust for failings in the previous one. And this in fact has happened, for these theories and schools of thought have been changing since they first came out. In science, hypotheses are put forth in such a manner that they can be disproven. Once they are, then the hypothesis is simply modified to account for the new information, and they roll with the new design to see how far it goes. In this manner a lot of explanations are built up and serves as a sort of structure that makes it credible in the eyes of those without much faith.

But for us with faith, it is not appropriate to give credence to these theories at all, especially since the Church has already spoken on the matter in many cases.

hurst