Is Saint Paul more authoritative than the Gospels?

[Estro Felino]

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.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.

Without the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, recorded in the book of Acts, there is no new covenant.

In Hebrews 9:16,17 it says, 'For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth'.

If the Gospels had been the end of scripture, the coming of the 'Comforter' may not have been understood.

The absence of Paul's epistles would not have prevented the outpouring of the Holy Spirit but it would have allowed heresy to influence Christian doctrine.

My guess is that, without Paul's teaching (and that of the other apostles), there would have been a retreat back into 'religion'. As we know from the book of Acts, some early converts reverted back to legalism, and the security that their religious traditions had given them.

Your question is actually very pertinent, because there are many who call themselves Christians today who have never experienced the promises of the new covenant.

 

[Estro Felino]

Without the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, recorded in the book of Acts, there is no new covenant.

In Hebrews 9:16,17 it says, 'For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth'.

If the Gospels had been the end of scripture, the coming of the 'Comforter' may not have been understood.

The absence of Paul's epistles would not have prevented the outpouring of the Holy Spirit but it would have allowed heresy to influence Christian doctrine.

My guess is that, without Paul's teaching (and that of the other apostles), there would have been a retreat back into 'religion'. As we know from the book of Acts, some early converts reverted back to legalism, and the security that their religious traditions had given them.

Your question is actually very pertinent, because there are many who call themselves Christians today who have never experienced the promises of the new covenant.

This answer is very insightful and interesting. Catholicism too takes Paul's epistles into significant consideration and account.
Nevertheless as a person who has been raised Catholic, I know that the Gospels are the truth dictated by our Lord Jesus, whereas Paul's epistles are admonishments and advises from either great apostle of Christianity.
The other is Saint Peter.
ERGO
Jesus the Lord prevails over a man, Paul.


So my question still stands: are the Gospels more authoritative than Paul's epistles?
By authoritative I mean that if there are two verses (one from the epistles and one from the Gospels) that slightly contradict each other, the Gospels prevail. At least that's what I was taught.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So my question still stands: are the Gospels more authoritative than Paul's epistles?
By authoritative I mean that if there are two verses (one from the epistles and one from the Gospels) that slightly contradict each other, the Gospels prevail. At least that's what I was taught.

That is called a 'constraint'. Constraints are used in analysis to aid in the analysis. I grow up with different constraints such as the constraint that there are no contradictions, that the lack of contradictions are one of God's assurances to us that the scriptures are true.

That may sound odd to you, however it partially creates a system of interpretation. I am not saying that it is easy. When, as you mention, there appear to be disagreements between any books the proper response is "I don't understand" or "I will have to wait" or "I will get some help." It is never "there is a contradiction between these two books!" In which case Paul is authoritative and the gospels are, too.

I have since stopped assuming that there can be no contradictions, but it is very common for Christians to begin with this constraint. It is doctrine many places, and it is mentioned on church web sites as part of the set of agreed upon tenets. So it is not something that the churches are flexible about usually, and so in most places where I have been there is no statement that the gospels are more authoritative than Paul, Peter, James, Jude or John, since none contradict each other.

 

[Estro Felino]

That is called a 'constraint'. Constraints are used in analysis to aid in the analysis. I grow up with different constraints such as the constraint that there are no contradictions, that the lack of contradictions are one of God's assurances to us that the scriptures are true.

That may sound odd to you, however it partially creates a system of interpretation. I am not saying that it is easy. When, as you mention, there appear to be disagreements between any books the proper response is "I don't understand" or "I will have to wait" or "I will get some help." It is never "there is a contradiction between these two books!" In which case Paul is authoritative and the gospels are, too.

I have since stopped assuming that there can be no contradictions, but it is very common for Christians to begin with this constraint. It is doctrine many places, and it is mentioned on church web sites as part of the set of agreed upon tenets. So it is not something that the churches are flexible about usually, and so in most places where I have been there is no statement that the gospels are more authoritative than Paul, Peter, James, Jude or John, since none contradict each other.

Honestly I did find some little contradictions here and there, but this does not jeopardize the holiness of the epistles, whether they are from Paul, Peter, James, etc...
Nevertheless all these people are men, they are very different than Jesus, who is God.
I vividly recall that at catechism class we had the catechism book and a little book called Gospels-Acts (that is the 4 gospels and acts). That was our Bible. So to me it has always been absolutely clear that the truth is primarily in the Gospels. So to me it can seem weird that many Christian denominations focus on Saint Paul's works so much and so often (and on the OT as well).

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

In every issue, first it should be resolved within the teachings of Jesus (from his claims and reasons), please. Right?

Regards

 

[Brian2]

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.

Correct interpretation is important in both gospels and epistles and imo correct interpretation should yield no contradictions, but sometimes it does appear as it there are contradictions even between the gospels and the order of events etc.
I just see the OT and NT as both the word of God in all their parts.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Nevertheless all these people are men, they are very different than Jesus, who is God.

I need to add something to what I have told you. Along with this system of 'No contradictions' a person will hear sermons and classes and in these will be told "Always compare what I am saying against the scriptures, because the scriptures are authoritative, not me." We will also be told that the scriptures we have contain everything we need. This creates a class of questions about who Jesus is, because no matter what the preacher says we have to question it; yet it is difficult to derive from scripture alone everything preachers say. (It is in a way something which sharpens the mind, because its a very complicated puzzle to derive things this way.) Therefore we have discussions about whether Jesus is God and not only discussions but confusion, sometimes. The more you dig into the topic the more confusing it is, since he says things as a man. This is very common, though ministers always assure that Jesus is God. They assure of this, however they will usually also say to check their words against the scriptures. It is a kind of challenge they'll put forward as a badge of sincerity. It is stock, not unusual.

Honestly I did find some little contradictions here and there, but these does not jeopardize the holiness of the epistles, whether they are from Paul, Peter, James, etc...
Nevertheless all these people are men, they are very different than Jesus, who is God.
I vividly recall that at catechism class we had the catechism book and a little book called Gospels-Acts (that is the 4 gospels and acts). That was our Bible. So to me it has always been absolutely clear that the truth is primarily in the Gospels. So to me it can seem weird that many Christian denominations focus on Saint Paul's works so much and so often (and on the OT as well).

I understand what you are saying, however if your entire trust is in perfect scriptures with no contradictions then it does jeopardize many things to say that you have found contradictions. It also comes across as a challenge to a minister. It is a challenge to their own authenticity and to the basis of their position if they have been teaching for years that there were no contradictions in scripture. It would be a pill the size of Paris.

In this system when you remove the constraint that there are no contradictions, then everything leads towards a complete redrawing and reconsideration of all assumptions. Nothing feels safe to assume, so you might change to various positions. The ground is gone. You may go to the LDS or to the Catholics or to almost anything. There is that thin of a barrier between this system and almost everything else.

 

[Redemptionsong]

This answer is very insightful and interesting. Catholicism too takes Paul's epistles into significant consideration and account.
Nevertheless as a person who has been raised Catholic, I know that the Gospels are the truth dictated by our Lord Jesus, whereas Paul's epistles are admonishments and advises from either great apostle of Christianity.
The other is Saint Peter.
ERGO
Jesus the Lord prevails over a man, Paul.


So my question still stands: are the Gospels more authoritative than Paul's epistles?
By authoritative I mean that if there are two verses (one from the epistles and one from the Gospels) that slightly contradict each other, the Gospels prevail. At least that's what I was taught.

When you say that the Gospels are 'the truth dictated by our Lord Jesus', do you mean that the Gospels are prophecy (Christ being the Spirit of prophecy) but the rest of the NT is some lesser form of human revelation?

IMO, this elevation of one portion of scripture over another causes problems, although l understand that such thinking exists amongst Jews regarding the Tanakh. For most, if not all Jews(?), the Torah is given primacy over the Prophets and Writings.

A passage often quoted in Protestant circles is 2 Tim.3:16,17:
'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works'.

By 'all scripture' is meant the canon of Christian scripture, 66 books in all, not including the Apocrypha.

 

[Estro Felino]

When you say that the Gospels are 'the truth dictated by our Lord Jesus', do you mean that the Gospels are prophecy (Christ being the Spirit of prophecy) but the rest of the NT is some lesser form of human revelation?

Yes, I do. Especially because Saint Paul is a former persecutor of Christians.

IMO, this elevation of one portion of scripture over another causes problems, although l understand that such thinking exists amongst Jews regarding the Tanakh. For most, if not all Jews(?), the Torah is given primacy over the Prophets and Writings.

Exactly. There is a hierarchy of sources in other religions too. So therefore, in Christianity too.

A passage often quoted in Protestant circles is 2 Tim.3:16,17:
'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works'.
By 'all scripture' is meant the canon of Christian scripture, 66 books in all, not including the Apocrypha.

That sounds absolutely rightful. And I do understand and value this approach, even if it is well-known that we Catholics tendentiously rely on priests, as for the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
I was brought up that way too.

 

[Estro Felino]

In every issue, first it should be resolved within the teachings of Jesus (from his claims and reasons), please. Right?

Regards

Yes, I guess so.

 

[paarsurrey]

This answer is very insightful and interesting. Catholicism too takes Paul's epistles into significant consideration and account.
Nevertheless as a person who has been raised Catholic, I know that the Gospels are the truth dictated by our Lord Jesus, whereas Paul's epistles are admonishments and advises from either great apostle of Christianity.
The other is Saint Peter.
ERGO
Jesus the Lord prevails over a man, Paul.


So my question still stands: are the Gospels more authoritative than Paul's epistles?
By authoritative I mean that if there are two verses (one from the epistles and one from the Gospels) that slightly contradict each other, the Gospels prevail. At least that's what I was taught.

" Gospels are the truth dictated by our Lord Jesus "

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

Regards

 

[Estro Felino]

I need to add something to what I have told you. Along with this system of 'No contradictions' a person will hear sermons and classes and in these will be told "Always compare what I am saying against the scriptures, because the scriptures are authoritative, not me." We will also be told that the scriptures we have contain everything we need. This creates a class of questions about who Jesus is, because no matter what the preacher says we have to question it; yet it is difficult to derive from scripture alone everything preachers say. (It is in a way something which sharpens the mind, because its a very complicated puzzle to derive things this way.) Therefore we have discussions about whether Jesus is God and not only discussions but confusion, sometimes. The more you dig into the topic the more confusing it is, since he says things as a man. This is very common, though ministers always assure that Jesus is God. They assure of this, however they will usually also say to check their words against the scriptures. It is a kind of challenge they'll put forward as a badge of sincerity. It is stock, not unusual.


I understand what you are saying, however if your entire trust is in perfect scriptures with no contradictions then it does jeopardize many things to say that you have found contradictions. It also comes across as a challenge to a minister. It is a challenge to their own authenticity and to the basis of their position if they have been teaching for years that there were no contradictions in scripture. It would be a pill the size of Paris.

In this system when you remove the constraint that there are no contradictions, then everything leads towards a complete redrawing and reconsideration of all assumptions. Nothing feels safe to assume, so you might change to various positions. The ground is gone. You may go to the LDS or to the Catholics or to almost anything. There is that thin of a barrier between this system and almost everything else.

I guess a practical example would be very helpful, right?

As I said, at Catechism Class I studied Gospels only. So no teacher has ever explained me Paul's epistles. At all.
But, by reading them as an adult, it seems to me that according to Saint Paul, all sins are equally grave in the eyes of God.
Is that right?

 

[paarsurrey]

That is called a 'constraint'. Constraints are used in analysis to aid in the analysis. I grow up with different constraints such as the constraint that there are no contradictions, that the lack of contradictions are one of God's assurances to us that the scriptures are true.

That may sound odd to you, however it partially creates a system of interpretation. I am not saying that it is easy. When, as you mention, there appear to be disagreements between any books the proper response is "I don't understand" or "I will have to wait" or "I will get some help." It is never "there is a contradiction between these two books!" In which case Paul is authoritative and the gospels are, too.

I have since stopped assuming that there can be no contradictions, but it is very common for Christians to begin with this constraint. It is doctrine many places, and it is mentioned on church web sites as part of the set of agreed upon tenets. So it is not something that the churches are flexible about usually, and so in most places where I have been there is no statement that the gospels are more authoritative than Paul, Peter, James, Jude or John, since none contradict each other.

" God's assurances "

Does one mean from God here " G-d the Father ", please?
I ask this as in Bible even the Jews have been called gods, please. Right?

Regards
____________
"I SAID: YOU ARE GODS": PSALM 82:6 AND JOHN 10

 

[paarsurrey]

Honestly I did find some little contradictions here and there, but this does not jeopardize the holiness of the epistles, whether they are from Paul, Peter, James, etc...
Nevertheless all these people are men, they are very different than Jesus, who is God.
I vividly recall that at catechism class we had the catechism book and a little book called Gospels-Acts (that is the 4 gospels and acts). That was our Bible. So to me it has always been absolutely clear that the truth is primarily in the Gospels. So to me it can seem weird that many Christian denominations focus on Saint Paul's works so much and so often (and on the OT as well).

" who is God "

Does one mean here in the Biblical sense in which even the Jews have been called "gods", which means chosen one of G-d-the Father, and nothing else, it transpires, please? Right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

When you say that the Gospels are 'the truth dictated by our Lord Jesus', do you mean that the Gospels are prophecy (Christ being the Spirit of prophecy) but the rest of the NT is some lesser form of human revelation?

IMO, this elevation of one portion of scripture over another causes problems, although l understand that such thinking exists amongst Jews regarding the Tanakh. For most, if not all Jews(?), the Torah is given primacy over the Prophets and Writings.

A passage often quoted in Protestant circles is 2 Tim.3:16,17:
'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works'.

By 'all scripture' is meant the canon of Christian scripture, 66 books in all, not including the Apocrypha.

" By 'all scripture' is meant the canon of Christian scripture, 66 books in all "

But, was canonization done by Jesus, please?
I don't get it from the Gospels, please. Right?
Did I miss something, please? Right?

Regards

 

[Estro Felino]

" who is God "

Does one mean here in the Biblical sense in which even the Jews have been called "gods", which means chosen one of G-d-the Father, and nothing else, it transpires, please? Right?

Regards

No. God the Father = God the Son.

 

[Brickjectivity]

@paarsurrey I no longer use these constraints.

I guess a practical example would be very helpful, right?

As I said, at Catechism Class I studied Gospels only. So no teacher has ever explained me Paul's epistles. At all.
But, by reading them as an adult, it seems to me that according to Saint Paul, all sins are equally grave in the eyes of God.
Is that right?

You sometimes ask hard questions. I think he is not intending to equate all sins. He is, however, promoting a life which is dedicated at all times, and he believes this is necessary to achieve the goals of Christ.

Paul is always arguing that we must die to ourselves. He suggests that we humans mentally assent to morality -- but that our feelings and compulsions are against it. Therefore we must die to those compulsions and do what we know is right and that only. In his terminology: our flesh is at war with the spirit within us. That means one of the two must win, and one must lose. There can be no treaty to Paul, no balance. Paul appears and tries to change the conversation within a pagan culture which is new to Jewish concepts and learning Jewish concepts of falling versus being upright, of balance, of life versus death, of success versus failure. Ecclesiastes 7:16 is an example of this concept of balance: "Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise— why destroy yourself?" These probably seem like good, reasonable ideas to the people he is addressing, but Paul walks into this philosophical discussion which is like a chess game and knocks over the board.

He believes that in Christ there should be or can be no compromise between the dark and the light, no balance, no relaxing. He compares life in Christ to military service and to running a marathon without stopping. He believes that the spirit and the flesh are at war and that the spirit must win. This is not the same as equating all sins, but it is requiring one to live with absolute intensity. This will be better he thinks then living by the law.

I am not going to say why Paul believes in such urgency, so much dedication. That is probably something that is debated. It could for a time period in which they are living, to obtain favor and gain access to synagogues. It could be that Paul expects a transformation of humanity in a short time period. It could be that this is what he thinks is required to lift Jesus up from the earth and draw all people. Paul demands (for whatever reason) a whole lot of dedication. But actually I will say why.

Returning to your question: Does he believe and say that all sins are the same? In Romans chapters 1 and 2 he talks about the cycle of sin and repentance in Israel, because he want to show that something better than the law is needed. When reading these chapters its easy to think he is talking about an individual human who is failing, but he is talking about generations of people and calling them 'You'. So some of these people do good and some do bad, but what he is saying is two things. First, Israel which has the law is nevertheless sinning every now and then, so there is no difference between them and other people not really according to Paul -- not in the long run. Secondly by having a conscience a person without the law shows that there is a law already written upon the heart (alluding to various scriptures about the law and the heart). He's not saying that all sins are equally destructive, no.

He's not speaking authoritatively either in Romans 1 and 2 but is making an argument. By saying this Paul is trying to say that Israel ought to start over with conscience as their new covenant. It sounds as if he is alluding to the new covenant Jeremiah 31:33 mentions but its not so literal. He wants everyone to be in an expanded covenant similar to what Jews have, but he believes conscience is the law of the future. At the same time he recognizes that there is value in the law. He's just disappointed with its long term results. He's tired of waiting for it to mature or something. Its an argument he's making. I wouldn't call it authoritative, because you can't just walk up to Israel and say "Start over with a new covenant, Israel."

He makes all of these arguments about how the laws fail to constrain and how education fails to educate and how scholarship fails to improve people, but he is adamant that each person do only and exactly what their conscience allows.

So he isn't saying that all sins are the same, but he is saying that our consciences would have us all do the right thing at all times. What do our consciences want us to do? They want us to do all kinds of difficult things. Its not a comfortable thought to always follow your conscience. But this does not make all sins equal.

 

[Estro Felino]

@paarsurrey I no longer use these constraints.


You sometimes ask hard questions. I think he is not intending to equate all sins. He is, however, promoting a life which is dedicated at all times, and he believes this is necessary to achieve the goals of Christ.

Paul is always arguing that we must die to ourselves. He suggests that we humans mentally assent to morality -- but that our feelings and compulsions are against it. Therefore we must die to those compulsions and do what we know is right and that only. In his terminology: our flesh is at war with the spirit within us. That means one of the two must win, and one must lose. There can be no treaty to Paul, no balance. Paul appears and tries to change the conversation within a pagan culture which is new to Jewish concepts and learning Jewish concepts of falling versus being upright, of balance, of life versus death, of success versus failure. Ecclesiastes 7:16 is an example of this concept of balance: "Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise— why destroy yourself?" These probably seem like good, reasonable ideas to the people he is addressing, but Paul walks into this philosophical discussion which is like a chess game and knocks over the board.

He believes that in Christ there should be or can be no compromise between the dark and the light, no balance, no relaxing. He compares life in Christ to military service and to running a marathon without stopping. He believes that the spirit and the flesh are at war and that the spirit must win. This is not the same as equating all sins, but it is requiring one to live with absolute intensity. This will be better he thinks then living by the law.

I am not going to say why Paul believes in such urgency, so much dedication. That is probably something that is debated. It could for a time period in which they are living, to obtain favor and gain access to synagogues. It could be that Paul expects a transformation of humanity in a short time period. It could be that this is what he thinks is required to lift Jesus up from the earth and draw all people. Paul demands (for whatever reason) a whole lot of dedication. But actually I will say why.

Returning to your question: Does he believe and say that all sins are the same? In Romans chapters 1 and 2 he talks about the cycle of sin and repentance in Israel, because he want to show that something better than the law is needed. When reading these chapters its easy to think he is talking about an individual human who is failing, but he is talking about generations of people and calling them 'You'. So some of these people do good and some do bad, but what he is saying is two things. First, Israel which has the law is nevertheless sinning every now and then, so there is no difference between them and other people not really according to Paul -- not in the long run. Secondly by having a conscience a person without the law shows that there is a law already written upon the heart (alluding to various scriptures about the law and the heart).

By saying this Paul is trying to say that Israel ought to start over with conscience as their new covenant. It sounds as if he is alluding to the new covenant Jeremiah 31:33 mentions but its not so literal. He wants everyone to be in an expanded covenant similar to what Jews have, but he believes conscience is the law of the future. At the same time he recognizes that there is value in the law. He's just disappointed with its long term results. He's tired of waiting for it to mature or something. Its an argument he's making. I wouldn't call it authoritative, because you can't just walk up to Israel and say "Start over with a new covenant, Israel."

He makes all of these arguments about how the laws fail to constrain and how education fails to educate and how scholarship fails to improve people, but he is adamant that each person do only and exactly what their conscience allows.

Now what do our consciences want us to do? They want us to do all kinds of difficult things. Its not a comfortable thought to always follow your conscience. But this does not make all sins equal.

This is surely a very useful and detailed summary of Saint Paul's vision of sin and it is very insightful, thank you.

Which confirms that he was a slightly weary man (who wouldn't be, I mean, he switched from being the Pharisee persecuting Christians to a Christian apostle evangelizing Pagans).
But on the other hand, it also confirms that epistles are nothing but personal opinions, admonishments, doctrinal and theological reasoning that try to answer questions asked by former Pagans (Greeks and Romans, mainly).
So he is supposed to try to explain Christian theology to Pagans with the instruments of the Old Testament.
And it is a pity that the senders' epistles are gone (Paul used to keep them all, but when he was executed, the Romans destroyed all his belongings).
So...I guess I do not approve of Christians turning these epistles into a Gospel that supersedes Christ's parables.

Whenever I want to understand a theological truth (like sins and whether all sins are equal) I study the parables. I read the theological analysis on parables.
Reading Jesus' parables, it is clear that we are all sinners (as Paul said). Nevertheless, repentance and love can save us.
It is also clear that we need to avoid the irreparable sins, which is the sins that cannot be emended like murder, fraud, treason, etc...
Because all the emendable sins are nothing compared to the first (Jesus explains with the speck of dust and the log parable).

 

[Notthedarkweb]

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.

So there are two questions going on here, that imo ought to be separated. One, is St. Paul more historically representative of the early Nazarene community than the Gospels? Two, ought St. Paul be as authoritative as the Gospels?

The answer to the first one is obvious, the genuine Pauline Epistles were written at least 20 years before the writing of the gospel accounts, which means that serve as our earliest texts of the ancient Nazarene community. An entire generation has passed between the genuine Pauline epistles and the authorial communities of the Gospel. This doesn't mean that the Gospels are illegitimate as historical primary sources, since they are constructed out of older sayings-traditions about Jesus' life. John P. Meier's Marginal Jew is specifically a vast reconstruction of rhe specifics of Jesus' life and context out of the gospel accounts. It's just that Paul's genuine epistles offer a first-person view into the functioning of the early apostolic community we really don't get elsewhere.

The second question is: should Paul be authoritative? The obvious answer here is, yes. The entire New Testament is divinely inspired Word, and Paul is contained within it. In fact, we can turn the question the other way around. Considering that the gospel texts are younger than the Pauline epistles, should we trust the gospel texts? It would be manifestly absurd to reject either of these two sources of the Christian faith for the Church. The broader theological question of whether or not the Church follows the word of the Bible over and above the Word of God is general though, and not just restricted to Paul. This problematic was first pointed out by reformed theologian (and the most influential Christian thinker of the 20th century) Karl Barth, who noted that the Bible as written text was a human-written copy of the Word of God, which was freely given by his own decision. Considering that God reveals himself analogically in relation to the finite, historically limited capacity of man, the written text of the Bible assumes a hermeneutics of perpetual movement and completion in history with changing interpretative contexts. The problem here that Barth sees with exegetical theology that attempts to base faith on how it existed in the 1st century AD is that it reifies God's freedom and determines it in terms of a human-copied text. Of course the Bible isn't absolute because the Word can be freely changed, if it was freely given. The task of a Christian, then, is to be a theologian in his way of life, re-enacting the Word in their life in such a way that the characters of the drama of the 1st-century AD would do in today's world i.e. organizing and continually reflecting upon one's contemporary actions and responsibility with the Bible as a criterion for how the Apostles would have acted in relation to Paul's high Christology of fulfillment of law = Christ = love ((Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8–9)