Is Saint Paul more authoritative than the Gospels?

[Notthedarkweb]

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.

I mean, no, this seems like an insane extreme. The normative position of the creedal churches is that the entire Canon has been freely given by the grace of God to humanity, including the Pauline texts, authentic or non-authentic. The Gospels are second-person accounts of Jesus' life as a testament to God's activity in the world as the Son and his promise to us of salvation. Paul's epistles, and the other epistles in the text, are the Godhead's own self-reflection on its real life in the world and its mission, i.e. it is fundamental theology since its perfect science of being as revealed to being itself (God as perfect being.)

Both are absolutely necessary for an understanding of the Christian faith because there is no Christian faith separate from Paul's theology of it. At least Luke-Acts and John are very heavily inspired by Pauline Christology, and Luke-Acts is basically the Gospel account as undertaken through Pauline methods, to the point that it departs from Mark to basically all but quote Paul.

 

[Estro Felino]

I mean, no, this seems like an insane extreme. The normative position of the creedal churches is that the entire Canon has been freely given by the grace of God to humanity, including the Pauline texts, authentic or non-authentic. The Gospels are second-person accounts of Jesus' life as a testament to God's activity in the world as the Son and his promise to us of salvation. Paul's epistles, and the other epistles in the text, are the Godhead's own self-reflection on its real life in the world and its mission, i.e. it is fundamental theology since its perfect science of being as revealed to being itself (God as perfect being.)

I think that our religion is called Christianity, not Paulinism.
Gospel means God's word. Because Jesus is God.
Even in Romance languages and in German, Gospel is translated as "good tidings", so the purpose of teaching is undeniable.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

I think that our religion is called Christianity, not Paulinism.
Gospel means God's word. Because Jesus is God.
Even in Romance languages and in German, Gospel is translated as "good tidings", so the purpose of teaching is undeniable.

This is irrelevant to any proper exegesis of the text. Paul was aware of the Jesus-tradition that was used to complete Mark, and the author of Luke-Acts was at the very least aware of Paul's apostolic career, even if its possible that he didn't read the letters (as they weren't collated until Marcion). Christianity's self-narrative of canonical decision as put in the councils is that the Holy Spirit guided the collection of the texts that constitute the Canon, and the fact that Marcion, a writer who was opposed to what became the post-2nd century orthodoxy of the Church has the first canonical list that corresponds to the contemporary canon indicates that it wasn't a result of any political decision but genuine theological concerns. We have zero direct access to the sayings-tradition of Jesus, and we have zero direct access to the Apostolic authors outside Paul. The fact is that Christianity as constituted in the world is equivalent to Pauline Christianity. There is no way to escape this fundamental fact, unless one claims that the entire Church since the 2nd century, plus at least one of the Gospel authors, were wrong about this.

 

[Estro Felino]

This is irrelevant to any proper exegesis of the text. Paul was aware of the Jesus-tradition that was used to complete Mark, and the author of Luke-Acts was at the very least aware of Paul's apostolic career, even if its possible that he didn't read the letters (as they weren't collated until Marcion). Christianity's self-narrative of canonical decision as put in the councils is that the Holy Spirit guided the collection of the texts that constitute the Canon, and the fact that Marcion, a writer who was opposed to what became the post-2nd century orthodoxy of the Church has the first canonical list that corresponds to the contemporary canon indicates that it wasn't a result of any political decision but genuine theological concerns. We have zero direct access to the sayings-tradition of Jesus, and we have zero direct access to the Apostolic authors outside Paul. The fact is that Christianity as constituted in the world is equivalent to Pauline Christianity. There is no way to escape this fundamental fact, unless one claims that the entire Church since the 2nd century, plus at least one of the Gospel authors, were wrong about this.

Do you agree with the fact that according to Paul, all sins are equally grave in the eyes of God?

 

[Notthedarkweb]

Do you agree with the fact that according to Paul, all sins are equally grave in the eyes of God?

I'm not sure what the relevance of this claim is to the general exegetical discussion we are having here? Though if you want to read a text on the Pauline influence on the Gospels, Mark and Paul: Comparative Essays Part II. For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark is a text that contains both positions on Pauline influence on Mark, the primitive gospel source. Also see: Joel Marcus's article, "Mark - Interpreter of Paul," NTS 46 (2000): 473-87. I am not entirely sure on work about Pauline influence directly on Luke, but since its commonly accepted that Luke and Acts have the same author, you can check out Schellenberg's The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul's Itinerary in the Letters and in Acts which argues for Pauline influence on Acts.

Edit: Now that I remember, Paul and the Gospels, Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences has the essay "Luke: Companion or Disciple of Paul?" by Stanley E. Porter which conjectures that at the very least Paul and Luke both depended on the same Christ-tradition in their authorship, and that there is a very good argument to be made for Lukan dependence on Paul in matters of atonement and resurrection.

 

[wellwisher]

Paul extrapolated the implications of the teachings of Jesus. The tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was connected to original sin and law. Law breaks down behavior into good and evil. The implication of the death of Jesus was Law was no longer in affect, due to the forgiveness of sin and the sacrifice for sin. Jesus was the like the second Adam, which essentially brought humans back to before the Fall from paradise. Paul said, it not longer yes and no; good and evil, but yes in him; all is good like in paradise.

Paul became all things to all men so he could save some. All cliques have their rules/laws needed to belong to that clique. Paul would conform to the local customs, without conflict, since he was not under law or the old rules/laws of his Jewish faith. He was free to follow the spirit within, not feeling he was breaking any rules. For example, Jews were not suppose to eat pork, but Paul, if among those who did, would eat, since he was no longer under law, but would follow his spirit to do so, so he could reach more people and not shun any of them based on their traditions and rules.

Paul's destiny was to speak this gospel to the Roman Senate; Romans. The idea of law becoming obsolete, did not go well with the Senators, since it would have a negative impact on their power. Paul's testament was heard by Rome, but he was then sentenced to death. As history showed humans would not give up law. Today they make more and more laws of man while ignoring the laws of God; relative morality.

Paul made a contrast between the children of the promise; faith apart from law, and the children of the bondwoman; under law. The bondwoman is like a slave that has to follow the rules of man or suffer consequences., The children of the promise are like children of God and therefore are above the laws of man, but not the laws of God their father; natural instinct and the inner spirit of truth.

Paul said that sin is not imputed where there is no law. For example, in the USA marijuana is legal in some states but not in others states. It is only a sin, where the prohibition is still in affect. If I cross a state border to a legal state the sin magically disappears. Sin appears because law defines the sin. If we remove the law the sin also goes away. Sin is not imputed, where there is no law.

Forgiveness of sin does the same thing in that if a law defines a sin and the sin is forgiven than this adds to the same end result as no law. Through the forgiveness of sin, Law becomes a guideline to help you make better judgments. While forgiveness of sin allows you to make bad judgement, so you can learn from your mistakes.

Law has been in effect for so long; thousand of years, that it is engrained in our DNA; selective advantage following the law. If we were to get rid of law, parts of the brain's operating system will cause chaos, like in Democrat run citifies where criminal behavior is semi-legal. Taking away all law does lead to paradise, since the brain's operating system is not set up to deal without law. One needs the inner spirit; app, that can lead to an update in the operating system, like Paul.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

Paul extrapolated the implications of the teachings of Jesus. The tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was connected to original sin and law. Law breaks down behavior into good and evil. The implication of the death of Jesus was Law was no longer in affect, due to the forgiveness of sin and the sacrifice for sin. Jesus was the like the second Adam, which essentially brought humans back to before the Fall from paradise. Paul said, it not longer yes and no; good and evil, but yes in him; all is good like in paradise.

Paul became all things to all men so he could save some. All cliques have their rules/laws needed to belong to that clique. Paul would conform to the local customs, without conflict, since he was not under law or the old rules/laws of his Jewish faith. He was free to follow the spirit within, not feeling he was breaking any rules. For example, Jews were not suppose to eat pork, but Paul, if among those who did, would eat, since he was no longer under law, but would follow his spirit to do so, so he could reach more people and not shun any of them based on their traditions and rules.

Paul's destiny was to speak this gospel to the Roman Senate; Romans. The idea of law becoming obsolete, did not go well with the Senators, since it would have a negative impact on their power. Paul's testament was heard by Rome, but he was then sentenced to death. As history showed humans would not give up law. Today they make more and more laws of man while ignoring the laws of God; relative morality.

Paul made a contrast between the children of the promise; faith apart from law, and the children of the bondwoman; under law. The bondwoman is like a slave that has to follow the rules of man or suffer consequences., The children of the promise are like children of God and therefore are above the laws of man, but not the laws of God their father; natural instinct and the inner spirit of truth.

Paul said that sin is not imputed where there is no law. For example, in the USA marijuana is legal in some states but not in others states. It is only a sin, where the prohibition is still in affect. If I cross a state border to a legal state the sin magically disappears. Sin appears because law defines the sin. If we remove the law the sin also goes away. Sin is not imputed, where there is no law.

Forgiveness of sin does the same thing in that if a law defines a sin and the sin is forgiven than this adds to the same end result as no law. Through the forgiveness of sin, Law becomes a guideline to help you make better judgments. While forgiveness of sin allows you to make bad judgement, so you can learn from your mistakes.

Law has been in effect for so long; thousand of years, that it is engrained in our DNA; selective advantage following the law. If we were to get rid of law, parts of the brain's operating system will cause chaos, like in Democrat run citifies where criminal behavior is semi-legal. Taking away all law does lead to paradise, since the brain's operating system is not set up to deal without law. One needs the inner spirit; app, that can lead to an update in the operating system, like Paul.

The only thing I can say is that this view of Pauline theology is so deeply disconnected from contemporary scholarship on Paul that its borderline hilarious. Also, no need to bring in contemporary politics into discussion of 1st-century AD texts, dude.

 

[Estro Felino]

This is irrelevant to any proper exegesis of the text. Paul was aware of the Jesus-tradition that was used to complete Mark, and the author of Luke-Acts was at the very least aware of Paul's apostolic career, even if its possible that he didn't read the letters (as they weren't collated until Marcion). Christianity's self-narrative of canonical decision as put in the councils is that the Holy Spirit guided the collection of the texts that constitute the Canon, and the fact that Marcion, a writer who was opposed to what became the post-2nd century orthodoxy of the Church has the first canonical list that corresponds to the contemporary canon indicates that it wasn't a result of any political decision but genuine theological concerns. We have zero direct access to the sayings-tradition of Jesus, and we have zero direct access to the Apostolic authors outside Paul. The fact is that Christianity as constituted in the world is equivalent to Pauline Christianity. There is no way to escape this fundamental fact, unless one claims that the entire Church since the 2nd century, plus at least one of the Gospel authors, were wrong about this.

There must be a reason why in the Catholic Mass the Sermon (homily) is about the Gospel of the day.
Why is that, in your opinion?
Why have I almost never listened to a sermon about the Old Testament or the epistles? Very rarely. Whenever the priest did that, he just did it briefly.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

There must be a reason why in the Catholic Mass the Sermon (homily) is about the Gospel of the day.
Why is that, in your opinion?
Why have I almost never listened to a sermon about the Old Testament or the epistles?

I mean, I am not a Catholic, and I don't think Catholic dogma about the provision of care to its congregation is correct. So I don't see why I need to justify myself in relation to that. But the church fathers gave homilies on the Epistles (such as John Chrysostom) and in my Anglican church, I have had homilies based on epistolary readings a few times. So...I don't really get the point of this question? And as my previous sentence indicated, epistolary readings are necessary in my Anglican service, at least.

Either way, this doesn't particular imply anything. Liturgy is informed by but separate from theology, as well as exegesis. I have already pointed out why theologically Paul is important, even on the Catholic view (since its a creedal church) and why exegetically Paul is intimately connected with how we see Christianity today in the first place (even assuming no direct influence of Paul on the Gospel authors.) Liturgy is the concrete manifestation of the life of the Church as determined by the canonical NT text, a text that has included the Pauline epistles ever since Marcion wrote down the tradition of canonicity he received.

 

[Brickjectivity]

reformed theologian (and the most influential Christian thinker of the 20th century) Karl Barth

A little background:
Karl Barth (Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology)

This is irrelevant to any proper exegesis of the text. Paul was aware of the Jesus-tradition that was used to complete Mark, and the author of Luke-Acts was at the very least aware of Paul's apostolic career, even if its possible that he didn't read the letters (as they weren't collated until Marcion). Christianity's self-narrative of canonical decision as put in the councils is that the Holy Spirit guided the collection of the texts that constitute the Canon, and the fact that Marcion, a writer who was opposed to what became the post-2nd century orthodoxy of the Church has the first canonical list that corresponds to the contemporary canon indicates that it wasn't a result of any political decision but genuine theological concerns. We have zero direct access to the sayings-tradition of Jesus, and we have zero direct access to the Apostolic authors outside Paul. The fact is that Christianity as constituted in the world is equivalent to Pauline Christianity. There is no way to escape this fundamental fact, unless one claims that the entire Church since the 2nd century, plus at least one of the Gospel authors, were wrong about this.

What about reconstructing everything for ourselves from previous scripture: laws, prophets, psalms etc?

 

[Estro Felino]

I mean, I am not a Catholic, and I don't think Catholic dogma about the provision of care to its congregation is correct. So I don't see why I need to justify myself in relation to that. But the church fathers gave homilies on the Epistles (such as John Chrysostom) and in my Anglican church, I have had homilies based on epistolary readings a few times. So...I don't really get the point of this question? And as my previous sentence indicated, epistolary readings are necessary in my Anglican service, at least.

Either way, this doesn't particular imply anything. Liturgy is informed by but separate from theology, as well as exegesis. I have already pointed out why theologically Paul is important, even on the Catholic view (since its a creedal church) and why exegetically Paul is intimately connected with how we see Christianity today in the first place (even assuming no direct influence of Paul on the Gospel authors.) Liturgy is the concrete manifestation of the life of the Church as determined by the canonical NT text, a text that has included the Pauline epistles ever since Marcion wrote down the tradition of canonicity he received.

I guess I have been misunderstood, then.
This thread doesn't cast doubts on the importance or the theological significance of the Epistles.
This thread is about a much simpler question: does a Gospel passage supersede Saint Paul's passages, or the latter is more important and prevails?

 

[Notthedarkweb]

What about reconstructing everything for ourselves from previous scripture: laws, prophets, psalms etc?

We can do all of that, sure, but as Augustine recognized in the 4th century AD, in the end we can't enter the minds of the people who are being talked about here. We can't do it with Paul either, but the fact that he directly writes about himself does give him a greater reliability (even if its partial, considering the conflict with the Hebrew branch of the Nazarene sect) than the post-Pauline writers. 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.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

I guess I have been misunderstood, then.
This thread doesn't cast doubts on the importance or the theological significance of the Epistles.
This thread is about a much simpler question: does a Gospel passage supersede Saint Paul's passages, or the latter is more important and prevails?

Yeah, no, my point is that they are both equally authoritative as part of the single Canon, but serve different purposes. The epistles are intended to be a theological and doctrinal reflection on the life of Christ contained within the Gospels, and can't be read separately for Christians.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah, no, my point is that they are both equally authoritative as part of the single Canon, but serve different purposes. The epistles are intended to be a theological and doctrinal reflection on the life of Christ contained within the Gospels, and can't be read separately for Christians.

Surely. But Gospels contain Jesus' parables. Don't they have a much greater theological importance?

 

[Notthedarkweb]

Surely. But Gospels contain Jesus' parables. Don't they have a much greater theological importance?

Ehhh...not particularly? Many of the issues that theologians focus on are much more well-developed in Paul than in the synoptics. And if we accept that Paul is divinely inspired, then really, I don't know if you can posit a hierarchy within divine action.

 

[Estro Felino]

Ehhh...not particularly? Many of the issues that theologians focus on are much more well-developed in Paul than in the synoptics. And if we accept that Paul is divinely inspired, then really, I don't know if you can posit a hierarchy within divine action.

Honestly, If I may be frank, I think that reading all epistles as a whole, soteriology appears very confusing and slightly contradictory in some points.
Gospels soteriology is incredibly clear and uncontradictable. And I am speaking of both the canonical gospels and many apocryphal gospels.
Especially the episode of the Centurion and the sick servant. That episode makes people cry. It makes understand how universal love and salvation can be. Which I didn't find in Saint Paul, I have to be honest.

 

[Redemptionsong]

" 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

The canon is determined by consistency with earlier prophetic utterances, so New Testament books are seen as fulfilling OT prophecy. Throughout the Bible, one prophet's word is seen to be supported and strengthened by the words of other prophets.

As it says in Revelation 19:10: 'worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy'.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

Honestly, If I may be frank, I think that reading all epistles as a whole, soteriology appears very confusing and slightly contradictory in some points.
Gospels soteriology is incredibly clear and uncontradictable. And I am speaking of both the canonical gospels and many apocryphal gospels.
Especially the episode of the Centurion and the sick servant. That episode makes people cry. It makes understand how universal love and salvation can be. Which I didn't find in Saint Paul, I have to be honest.

But Paul's epistles are exactly the universalist portion of the text in contemporary scholarship, along with John, which diverges significantly from the synoptics. Though now its moving into theology, which frankly I am not all that interested in discussing right now (since its a separate issue from the one raised above.) I will just say that dislike of theology doesn't mean that a text isn't authoritative. I find James an exceedingly strange work, but it's not my place to question its inclusion in the biblical canon and its authority. Its just a task to bring about unity in its divergence from the rest of the canon.

 

[Estro Felino]

But Paul's epistles are exactly the universalist portion of the text in contemporary scholarship, along with John, which diverges significantly from the synoptics. Though now its moving into theology, which frankly I am not all that interested in discussing right now (since its a separate issue from the one raised above.) I will just say that dislike of theology doesn't mean that a text isn't authoritative. I find James an exceedingly strange work, but it's not my place to question its inclusion in the biblical canon and its authority. Its just a task to bring about unity in its divergence from the rest of the canon.

As a premise, I would like to point out that I deeply respect my fellow Christians' opinion.
Whom I consider brothers and sisters in Christ.

Nevertheless I guess it is understandable that, even after contextualizing Saint Paul's epistles properly, I still cannot and will not consider them equivalent to the Gospel.
We are speaking of epistles which contain not that gentle and not that loving admonishments towards women (the "speaking in the assembly" part, and the "women's hair turn men on" part).
I cannot find love in those verses.
Whereas the all four gospels are nothing but love, love, love.
And that matters.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

As a premise, I would like to point out that I deeply respect my fellow Christians' opinion.
Whom I consider brothers and sisters in Christ.

Nevertheless I guess it is understandable that, even after contextualizing Saint Paul's epistles properly, I still cannot and will not consider them equivalent to the Gospel.
We are speaking of epistles which contain not that gentle and not that loving admonishments towards women (the "speaking in the assembly" part, and the "women's hair turn men on" part).
I cannot find love in those verses.
Whereas the all four gospels are nothing but love, love, love.
And that matters.

I would like to note that John P. Meier's (excellent) work on the historical Jesus has shown that Jesus himself didn't have what we would consider...exactly progressive opinions regarding Jewish law e.g. he had a much more radical position on divorce (completely prohibited) than the larger rabbinical tradition.