Is Saint Paul more authoritative than the Gospels?

[Nakosis]

Hi guys
This is particularly aimed at all Christians, regardless of their denomination.
This is something I have remarked throughout these years, on RF. Thanks to RF, I could discuss religion with other Christians, since in my country it is very difficult because it is not that religiously diverse.

According to my personal experience, I can say that being raised Catholic, a real, traditional Catholic education entirely focuses on the study of the Gospels. I vividly recall that my catechism teacher saying that the Gospel is more important than Saint Paul's epistles. Because
1) Saint Paul is not Jesus. The Gospels narrate what Jesus said.
2) Saint Paul is an apostle. Jesus is the Lord. Men are fallible, the Lord is infallible.
3) Saint Paul's epistles are answers to queries sent by the very first Christian communities across the Mediterranean (mainly in Greece and Anatolia). They have the form and the purpose of opinions and advises and yet they are considered like a Gospel.

Nevertheless, I really remarked that so many Christians quote Saint Paul much more often than the Gospels. As if Saint Paul was God.
The four Gospels are so rich in anecdotes, parables. It is about Jesus' teachings by 70%, while the 30% is about His life.
Please, discuss.

What I have experienced too.
When asking questions of Christians about Christianity the answer usually come from the letters of Paul. I think this comes from the Protestant idea of sola scriptura. That the Bible itself is the sole authority on God. There is a lot more of Paul's letters than the gospels and with sola scriptura, they have equal authority with the gospels.

 

[Brickjectivity]

As for the OT, the basic problem here is that its completely unacceptable in secular scholarship to say that the OT prefigures Jesus' incarnation, though as a theological principle, yeah, sure, I think its correct.

I hear you.

 

[Kenny]

Hi guys
This is particularly aimed at all Christians, regardless of their denomination.
This is something I have remarked throughout these years, on RF. Thanks to RF, I could discuss religion with other Christians, since in my country it is very difficult because it is not that religiously diverse.

According to my personal experience, I can say that being raised Catholic, a real, traditional Catholic education entirely focuses on the study of the Gospels. I vividly recall that my catechism teacher saying that the Gospel is more important than Saint Paul's epistles. Because
1) Saint Paul is not Jesus. The Gospels narrate what Jesus said.
2) Saint Paul is an apostle. Jesus is the Lord. Men are fallible, the Lord is infallible.
3) Saint Paul's epistles are answers to queries sent by the very first Christian communities across the Mediterranean (mainly in Greece and Anatolia). They have the form and the purpose of opinions and advises and yet they are considered like a Gospel.

Nevertheless, I really remarked that so many Christians quote Saint Paul much more often than the Gospels. As if Saint Paul was God.
The four Gospels are so rich in anecdotes, parables. It is about Jesus' teachings by 70%, while the 30% is about His life.
Please, discuss.

This is an interesting question that made me think... I never saw as an either/or situation or that one was more important or had more value but rather it was simply one (Paul) has a practical application of the spiritual (Jesus). Not saying that Jesus didn't give practical application but there was so much that he covered.

It is true that Jesus is the Lord whereas Paul was human. Yet, all the prophets were human too and Jesus quoted them again and again.

Never really found that Paul's writings somehow contradicted what Jesus said. But I love both.

 

[paarsurrey]

No. God the Father = God the Son.

How could G-d have a son when G-d doesn't have a wife, please? Right?

Regards

 

[Estro Felino]

How could G-d have a son when G-d doesn't have a wife, please? Right?

Regards

Well...this is a same-faith debate.

Among Christians.

 

[Estro Felino]

This is an interesting question that made me think... I never saw as an either/or situation or that one was more important or had more value but rather it was simply one (Paul) has a practical application of the spiritual (Jesus). Not saying that Jesus didn't give practical application but there was so much that he covered.

It is true that Jesus is the Lord whereas Paul was human. Yet, all the prophets were human too and Jesus quoted them again and again.

Never really found that Paul's writings somehow contradicted what Jesus said. But I love both.

Of course.
I did imply that both are important and fundamental parts of the New Testament.
I was just underlining that throughout my Catholic education, I have seen theologians (like Monsignor Poma but many others too) that quote the Gospels much more than the epistles (whether they are Paul's or not).
While discussing theology, soteriology, eschatology, hamartiology, Mariology...etc...
On the contrary, other Christians, especially in the US, turn out to know S. Paul's epistles thoroughly, almost by heart and quote them very often, whenever they speak of Christ. Much more than Gospels, apparently.

 

[paarsurrey]

" Gospels are the truth dictated by our Lord Jesus "

Sorry, I don't agree with one here, please. Right?

@Estro Felino,please.
Jesus did not dictate anything to anybody,neither Jesus claimed it nor any of the Gospels writers did claim it,please. Right?
If yes, then kindly quote from Jesus, please. Right?
Regards

 

[blü 2]

Hi guys
This is particularly aimed at all Christians, regardless of their denomination.
This is something I have remarked throughout these years, on RF. Thanks to RF, I could discuss religion with other Christians, since in my country it is very difficult because it is not that religiously diverse.

According to my personal experience, I can say that being raised Catholic, a real, traditional Catholic education entirely focuses on the study of the Gospels. I vividly recall that my catechism teacher saying that the Gospel is more important than Saint Paul's epistles. Because
1) Saint Paul is not Jesus. The Gospels narrate what Jesus said.
2) Saint Paul is an apostle. Jesus is the Lord. Men are fallible, the Lord is infallible.
3) Saint Paul's epistles are answers to queries sent by the very first Christian communities across the Mediterranean (mainly in Greece and Anatolia). They have the form and the purpose of opinions and advises and yet they are considered like a Gospel.

Nevertheless, I really remarked that so many Christians quote Saint Paul much more often than the Gospels. As if Saint Paul was God.
The four Gospels are so rich in anecdotes, parables. It is about Jesus' teachings by 70%, while the 30% is about His life.
Please, discuss.

Paul's letters were, it appears, unknown in the general Christian community until followers of Marcion produced them in arguments in the mid second century. This has given rise to the question, are they forgeries, written later? One of the reasons I think they're most likely authentic is that no one wanting to be taken seriously would invent a character like Paul, whose letters reveal a dingbat quality to his personality.

Paul (like all the other NT authors) never met an historical Jesus. He says that everything he tells you about Jesus came to him in a vision (Galatians 1:11-12), and that he has no other source (though that's plainly wrong). He teaches that Jesus lived in heaven with God from early on and created the material universe (1 Corinthians 8:6) ─ a gnostic view, with Jesus as the demiurge and necessary intermediary between the absolutely pure, absolutely spiritual, absolutely remote God and the defiling nature of the human's material world. (The author of John holds the same views.)

Paul thus isn't interested in the earthly biography of Jesus, and what he tells you will fit into a few lines ─

Jesus was born in human fashion (Galatians 4: 4) ─ as a Jew of the line of David (Romans 1:3) ─ and had a ‘brother’ named James (Galatians 1:19) ─ and a ministry to the Jews (Romans 15:8) ─ and taught about the end-times (1 Thessalonians 4:15) ┴ and had disciples, one of them called Peter (Galatians 1:19) ─ and initiated the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23) ─ and was handed over on the night of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25) ─ and his death was at the hands of earthly rulers (1 Corinthians 2:8) [historically, τῶν ἀρχόντω tōn arkhóntōn (‘rulers’) can only refer to the Romans with any accuracy. However, arkhóntōn is also the word for the (bad or indifferent) spiritual rulers of the earth in gnosticism] ─ and Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus’ death (1 Thessalonians 2:14) [but that passage is widely held to be a forgery] ─ and he died by crucifixion (1 Corinthians 1:23) ─ and was physically buried (1 Corinthians 15:4).​

End of story ─ including the omission of Judas Iscariot, of whom he's apparently unaware, since he refers to the 'twelve' after Jesus' death.

He expressly doesn't think Jesus is God (1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:11) ─ but neither do any of the gospel authors.

He thinks the present age will end with the return of Jesus (that is, the then-current apocalyptic view) eg Galatians 1:4.

He mentions (Romans 5:12) the midrash view that the Garden story in Genesis is about the Fall of Man (if you've read it, you'll know it says nothing of the kind), but this doesn't become Christian foreground till Augustine of Hippo picks it up and runs with it around 400 CE.

He says he stays away from sex, but others are welcome to it if they feel they absolutely have to. He tells slaves to be good little slaves. It's possible that his attacks on women are forgeries, but the point is argued both ways ─ mostly he appears to treat women equally.

So the rest is recruiting ─ he succeeds in getting rid of the requirement that converts be circumcised because he's noticed it's bad for sales, but his argument is doctrinal nonsense from a Jewish perspective.

Did I leave anything out?

 

[Kenny]

Of course.
I did imply that both are important and fundamental parts of the New Testament.
I was just underlining that throughout my Catholic education, I have seen theologians (like Monsignor Poma but many others too) that quote the Gospels much more than the epistles (whether they are Paul's or not).
While discussing theology, soteriology, eschatology, hamartiology, Mariology...etc...
On the contrary, other Christians, especially in the US, turn out to know S. Paul's epistles thoroughly, almost by heart and quote them very often, whenever they speak of Christ. Much more than Gospels, apparently.

Actually, you made me think... Not that the words of Jesus is less but why do esteem the words of Paul so highly.

(Of course if what Paul said violated what Jesus said, I would have a problem with Paul)

Upon deep consideration, I guess for the following reasons:

1) Jesus said: John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

As I understand it, there were things that would be revealed after the resurrection and things Jesus would share as well as His Holy Spirit upon the finishing of the redemption. He didn't share it all when he was walking on this earth.

2) Paul only knew Jesus as the resurrected King of Glory so I believe he had a greater revelation of the act of the resurrection.

Currently I am spending weeks of preaching and hours of studying on the last words of Jesus in the book of John.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

Paul's letters were, it appears, unknown in the general Christian community until followers of Marcion produced them in arguments in the mid second century. This has given rise to the question, are they forgeries, written later? One of the reasons I think they're most likely authentic is that no one wanting to be taken seriously would invent a character like Paul, whose letters reveal a dingbat quality to his personality.

Paul (like all the other NT authors) never met an historical Jesus. He says that everything he tells you about Jesus came to him in a vision (Galatians 1:11-12), and that he has no other source (though that's plainly wrong). He teaches that Jesus lived in heaven with God from early on and created the material universe (1 Corinthians 8:6) ─ a gnostic view, with Jesus as the demiurge and necessary intermediary between the absolutely pure, absolutely spiritual, absolutely remote God and the defiling nature of the human's material world. (The author of John holds the same views.)

Paul thus isn't interested in the earthly biography of Jesus, and what he tells you will fit into a few lines ─

Jesus was born in human fashion (Galatians 4: 4) ─ as a Jew of the line of David (Romans 1:3) ─ and had a ‘brother’ named James (Galatians 1:19) ─ and a ministry to the Jews (Romans 15:8) ─ and taught about the end-times (1 Thessalonians 4:15) ┴ and had disciples, one of them called Peter (Galatians 1:19) ─ and initiated the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23) ─ and was handed over on the night of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25) ─ and his death was at the hands of earthly rulers (1 Corinthians 2:8) [historically, τῶν ἀρχόντω tōn arkhóntōn (‘rulers’) can only refer to the Romans with any accuracy. However, arkhóntōn is also the word for the (bad or indifferent) spiritual rulers of the earth in gnosticism] ─ and Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus’ death (1 Thessalonians 2:14) [but that passage is widely held to be a forgery] ─ and he died by crucifixion (1 Corinthians 1:23) ─ and was physically buried (1 Corinthians 15:4).​

End of story ─ including the omission of Judas Iscariot, of whom he's apparently unaware, since he refers to the 'twelve' after Jesus' death.

He expressly doesn't think Jesus is God (1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:11) ─ but neither do any of the gospel authors.

He thinks the present age will end with the return of Jesus (that is, the then-current apocalyptic view) eg Galatians 1:4.

He mentions (Romans 5:12) the midrash view that the Garden story in Genesis is about the Fall of Man (if you've read it, you'll know it says nothing of the kind), but this doesn't become Christian foreground till Augustine of Hippo picks it up and runs with it around 400 CE.

He says he stays away from sex, but others are welcome to it if they feel they absolutely have to. He tells slaves to be good little slaves. It's possible that his attacks on women are forgeries, but the point is argued both ways ─ mostly he appears to treat women equally.

So the rest is recruiting ─ he succeeds in getting rid of the requirement that converts be circumcised because he's noticed it's bad for sales, but his argument is doctrinal nonsense from a Jewish perspective.

Did I leave anything out?

Wait, where did you get the "Paul doesn't think Jesus is God" from? The New Cambridge Companion to St. Paul has nothing about him believing this and he frequently mentions "our Lord Jesus Christ" or forms otherwise. Paul's Christology is is divine that scholars generally call it a high christology, so this is a very strange claim for me to see. Also there is no academic corroboration of the view that Paul teaches some gnostic view of Christianity, and in fact is generally very Jewish chauvinist in the original Koine texts of the epistles. Plus none of your cited textual examples are actually contradictory of early church theology. See for example

In Philippians, Paul describes Jesus as having preexisted super-celestially, “in the form of [a] god” (Phil 2:6) ("Who was Paul?" by Paula Frederiksen)​

Also, it's possible that the Markan Gospel author didn't see Jesus as a God, and that might have filtered into the Synoptics, but I have never seen any argument that the author of John didn't see Jesus as divine.

Plus Paul's theology is fairly ordinary from a 1st-century AD Hellenic Hillelite perspective. It is oriented as a simultaneous critique of ancient Platonism and ancient second-Temple Judaism, which was not an uncommon thing since rabbinical Judaism wasn't codified yet. There's a lot of claims here that need further substantiation.

​

 

[blü 2]

Wait, where did you get the "Paul doesn't think Jesus is God" from? The New Cambridge Companion to St. Paul has nothing about him believing this and he frequently mentions "our Lord Jesus Christ" or forms otherwise.

Just to be clear, I said above,

He [Paul] expressly doesn't think Jesus is God (1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:11) ─ but neither do any of the gospel authors.​

1 Corinthians 8:6 says:

yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.​

Paul's language keeps this distinction between God and Lord throughout.

Also there is no academic corroboration of the view that Paul teaches some gnostic view of Christianity, and in fact is generally very Jewish chauvinist in the original Koine texts of the epistles. Plus none of your cited textual examples are actually contradictory of early church theology. See for example

In Philippians, Paul describes Jesus as having preexisted super-celestially, “in the form of [a] god” (Phil 2:6) ("Who was Paul?" by Paula Frederiksen)​

Only Paul and the author of John think Jesus pre-existed in Heaven with God ie it's not the view of the synoptic authors. . It's consistent with the gnostic view but not decisive on its own, of course. What's decisive is Paul's statement that Jesus created the universe ─ the last part of the Corinthians quote above. It puts Paul's Jesus squarely in the role of the demiurge ("craftsman") who created the material universe, because creating anything material was nothing that would occur to a being so pure, so spiritual and so remote as the gnostic god ─ whence the necessity for a mediator (eg as in John 17).

And John's Jesus also created the universe ─ you can see these propositions together in John 1:2 ─

2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.​

Though all five major NT authors think Jesus is not God, John is perhaps the most emphatic on the point eg ─

John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

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

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

Also, it's possible that the Markan Gospel author didn't see Jesus as a God, and that might have filtered into the Synoptics, but I have never seen any argument that the author of John didn't see Jesus as divine.

I'd suggest that God and divine are not necessarily the same thing. Mark's Jesus is God-chosen, not God-sent. Matthew's and Luke's versions are conceived by a virgin so have God's Y-chromosome (while having incompatible and equally fake genealogies showing that Joseph, who is expressly not Jesus' father, was descended from David).

Oddly, I hadn't thought of it till this second ─ God conceiving [him]self (!). But the push to promote Jesus to God status comes after the gospel period. Even though it seems like predictable politics to want to promote the central character in Christianity to Boss status, and there were various proposals, we don't find the Trinity doctrine before the 4th century.

 

[Estro Felino]

Paul's letters were, it appears, unknown in the general Christian community until followers of Marcion produced them in arguments in the mid second century. This has given rise to the question, are they forgeries, written later? One of the reasons I think they're most likely authentic is that no one wanting to be taken seriously would invent a character like Paul, whose letters reveal a dingbat quality to his personality.

Paul (like all the other NT authors) never met an historical Jesus. He says that everything he tells you about Jesus came to him in a vision (Galatians 1:11-12), and that he has no other source (though that's plainly wrong). He teaches that Jesus lived in heaven with God from early on and created the material universe (1 Corinthians 8:6) ─ a gnostic view, with Jesus as the demiurge and necessary intermediary between the absolutely pure, absolutely spiritual, absolutely remote God and the defiling nature of the human's material world. (The author of John holds the same views.)

Paul thus isn't interested in the earthly biography of Jesus, and what he tells you will fit into a few lines ─

Jesus was born in human fashion (Galatians 4: 4) ─ as a Jew of the line of David (Romans 1:3) ─ and had a ‘brother’ named James (Galatians 1:19) ─ and a ministry to the Jews (Romans 15:8) ─ and taught about the end-times (1 Thessalonians 4:15) ┴ and had disciples, one of them called Peter (Galatians 1:19) ─ and initiated the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23) ─ and was handed over on the night of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25) ─ and his death was at the hands of earthly rulers (1 Corinthians 2:8) [historically, τῶν ἀρχόντω tōn arkhóntōn (‘rulers’) can only refer to the Romans with any accuracy. However, arkhóntōn is also the word for the (bad or indifferent) spiritual rulers of the earth in gnosticism] ─ and Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus’ death (1 Thessalonians 2:14) [but that passage is widely held to be a forgery] ─ and he died by crucifixion (1 Corinthians 1:23) ─ and was physically buried (1 Corinthians 15:4).​

End of story ─ including the omission of Judas Iscariot, of whom he's apparently unaware, since he refers to the 'twelve' after Jesus' death.

He expressly doesn't think Jesus is God (1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:11) ─ but neither do any of the gospel authors.

He thinks the present age will end with the return of Jesus (that is, the then-current apocalyptic view) eg Galatians 1:4.

He mentions (Romans 5:12) the midrash view that the Garden story in Genesis is about the Fall of Man (if you've read it, you'll know it says nothing of the kind), but this doesn't become Christian foreground till Augustine of Hippo picks it up and runs with it around 400 CE.

He says he stays away from sex, but others are welcome to it if they feel they absolutely have to. He tells slaves to be good little slaves. It's possible that his attacks on women are forgeries, but the point is argued both ways ─ mostly he appears to treat women equally.

So the rest is recruiting ─ he succeeds in getting rid of the requirement that converts be circumcised because he's noticed it's bad for sales, but his argument is doctrinal nonsense from a Jewish perspective.

Did I leave anything out?

He is the apostles of Gentiles. He is a saint and a great pillar of Christianity, together with Saint Peter.
But yes, his importance has been undoubtedly oversized.

The creation of New Testament was the most difficult task in early Christianity. There were countless Gospels. Countless. Tens and tens of them, throughout the Mediterranean. Out of these Gospels, the canonical four were chosen, but all the other ones were read as well (they were called apocryphal, which mean covered up, hidden).
They were read as well. And many of them survived and are still read.

The apostles wrote countless letters to their first Christian communities. Paul was the most active apostle and he must have sent and received hundreds of letters, throughout his entire life.
But the presence of these letter is not contingent.
If none of this letter had survived, Christianity would have still be the same, because the number of Gospels was incredibly big.
Their survival is just accidental.
When Paul was executed in Rome, all his belongings were surely destroyed. All his letters. But during the persecutions, the first Christian communities in Rome, Greece and Anatolia hid Paul's letters as a treasure, and they survived.
But the numbers of letters lost is immense.

 

[wizanda]

Nevertheless, I really remarked that so many Christians quote Saint Paul much more often than the Gospels. As if Saint Paul was God.

Christianity was first created in Antioch to Paul and Simon (Acts 11:25-26); to be a Christian we have to abide to what Paul teaches, not what came before it from Christ or what the earlier Church (Ebionites) followed.

Thus since Christianity is established on Paul's letters, the Gospel & letters of John, and Simon peter's writing; it should be obvious the Church was always divided, like the Wheat planted first, and then the Tares that came along after.

In my opinion.

 

[syo]

Saint Paul

Saul ----> Paul. People always forget that.

 

[Estro Felino]

Saul ----> Paul. People always forget that.

It deals with a Hebrew name, romanized, latinized.
Let's not forget that there was a cognomen in Latin, Paullus, originated in the Republican period.
He probably thought that Shaul sounded like Paullus, so he chose to use the latter.

 

[Estro Felino]

Christianity was first created in Antioch to Paul and Simon (Acts 11:25-26); to be a Christian we have to abide to what Paul teaches, not what came before it from Christ or what the earlier Church (Ebionites) followed.

Thus since Christianity is established on Paul's letters, the Gospel & letters of John, and Simon peter's writing; it should be obvious the church was always divided, like the Wheat planted first, and then the Tares that came along after.

In my opinion.

I consider myself Christian because I use the Gospel to understand Pauline theology and of course I find the Gospel theology, especially soteriology and hamartiology, much more reliable.
After all, my favorite Gospel is Matthew, that's why it is the first.

 

[blü 2]

He is the apostles of Gentiles. He is a saint and a great pillar of Christianity, together with Saint Peter.
But yes, his importance has been undoubtedly oversized.

The creation of New Testament was the most difficult task in early Christianity. There were countless Gospels. Countless. Tens and tens of them, throughout the Mediterranean. Out of these Gospels, the canonical four were chosen, but all the other ones were read as well (they were called apocryphal, which mean covered up, hidden).
They were read as well. And many of them survived and are still read.

There seems to be general agreement that the four in the NT are the oldest, notwithstanding later additions and ─ ahm ─ amendments.

The apostles wrote countless letters to their first Christian communities. Paul was the most active apostle and he must have sent and received hundreds of letters, throughout his entire life.

Church history certainly attributes literacy to some of them, but I'm not well enough informed to agree or disagree. I'd have thought the starting point for a player starting out in the Galilean religion industry of the 1st century CE would be his fellow-Aramaic speaking Jews, and since they were from the villages and countryside, I'd be slow to expect Greek speakers among them. Certainly I agree with scholars who say either 1 & 2 Peter were not written by an Aramaic-speaking fisherman or that Peter was neither an Aramaic speaker nor a fisherman but something from a family that could afford education and worked in those parts of administration or commerce where Greek speaking was normal.

If none of this letter had survived, Christianity would have still be the same, because the number of Gospels was incredibly big.

We have the four in the NT, subdivided by M and L and Q. Gospelwise, do we have anything else from the 1st century?

 

[Estro Felino]

There seems to be general agreement that the four in the NT are the oldest, notwithstanding later additions and ─ ahm ─ amendments.
Church history certainly attributes literacy to some of them, but I'm not well enough informed to agree or disagree. I'd have thought the starting point for a player starting out in the Galilean religion industry of the 1st century CE would be his fellow-Aramaic speaking Jews, and since they were from the villages and countryside, I'd be slow to expect Greek speakers among them. Certainly I agree with scholars who say either 1 & 2 Peter were not written by an Aramaic-speaking fisherman or that Peter was neither an Aramaic speaker nor a fisherman but something from a family that could afford education and worked in those parts of administration or commerce where Greek speaking was normal.

As for Saint Paul, I can assure that philologists have found out that the Pauline style is so unique that all the epistles attributed to him (except Hebrews) are from the same person. Because there is a very unique pattern in the use of Greek words, and in the way of reasoning. There are zero doubts on them.

 

[wizanda]

Saul ----> Paul. People always forget that.

Also just learned Saul (שׁאול) can be spelled the same as Sheol (שׁאל / שׁאול - Hell/Grave) in Hebrew.

In my opinion.

 

[Estro Felino]

Wait, where did you get the "Paul doesn't think Jesus is God" from? The New Cambridge Companion to St. Paul has nothing about him believing this and he frequently mentions "our Lord Jesus Christ" or forms otherwise. Paul's Christology is is divine that scholars generally call it a high christology, so this is a very strange claim for me to see. Also there is no academic corroboration of the view that Paul teaches some gnostic view of Christianity, and in fact is generally very Jewish chauvinist in the original Koine texts of the epistles. Plus none of your cited textual examples are actually contradictory of early church theology. See for example

In Philippians, Paul describes Jesus as having preexisted super-celestially, “in the form of [a] god” (Phil 2:6) ("Who was Paul?" by Paula Frederiksen)​

Also, it's possible that the Markan Gospel author didn't see Jesus as a God, and that might have filtered into the Synoptics, but I have never seen any argument that the author of John didn't see Jesus as divine.

Plus Paul's theology is fairly ordinary from a 1st-century AD Hellenic Hillelite perspective. It is oriented as a simultaneous critique of ancient Platonism and ancient second-Temple Judaism, which was not an uncommon thing since rabbinical Judaism wasn't codified yet. There's a lot of claims here that need further substantiation.

​

Thank you. That is very insightful.
I would like to point out that Mariology is a fundamental part of Catholic theology. Catholics believe in four Marian dogmas*.
Whose source and legitimization is necessarily to be found in the canonical Gospel (and in some apocryphal Gospels).
Has Paul ever spoken of Mary? Well...he probably did, given that the number of epistles lost is immense.
So we cannot exclude he discussed Mariology in his epistles.

* which are 1) Mother of God 2)Perpetual Virginity 3) Immaculate Conception 4) Assumption