Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: WhiteWorkinClassScapegoat on March 16, 2025, 01:55:52 PM
-
Why is there far more written text by Paul than direct quotes of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament? Does anyone find that peculiar? Jesus is Our Lord and Savior, so you would think that most of the text would be quotes and direct teachings from Him, not letters and text from a man who arrived on the scene after Christ's Life, Divine Sacrifice and Resurrection.
-
Sometimes I catch myself wondering about things like that. Instead of so many passages in the Old Testament about
the Hebrews doing this or that to displease God I wish there were more explicit statements in the New Testament about doctrine that would have prevented the likes of Luther, Calvin and all their ilk from perverting the meaning of basic tenets. Also a lot of the early heresies could have been prevented but we have to trust God left in exactly what was necessary.
-
Why is there far more written text by Paul than direct quotes of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament? Does anyone find that peculiar? Jesus is Our Lord and Savior, so you would think that most of the text would be quotes and direct teachings from Him, not letters and text from a man who arrived on the scene after Christ's Life, Divine Sacrifice and Resurrection.
Many people, especially Protestants, are more "Paulines" than "Christians."
-
Sometimes I catch myself wondering about things like that. Instead of so many passages in the Old Testament about
the Hebrews doing this or that to displease God I wish there were more explicit statements in the New Testament about doctrine that would have prevented the likes of Luther, Calvin and all their ilk from perverting the meaning of basic tenets. Also a lot of the early heresies could have been prevented but we have to trust God left in exactly what was necessary.
It doesn't matter how many explicit statements about doctrine could have been added to the scriptures, heretics like Luther and Calvin would have still found a way to interpret scripture in a perverse manner to suit their theology. Heretics have always reinterpreted even the most plainly clear passages of scripture to support their novel ideas. This is a pride problem, not a contents of scripture problem.
-
It doesn't matter how many explicit statements about doctrine could have been added to the scriptures, heretics like Luther and Calvin would have still found a way to interpret scripture in a perverse manner to suit their theology. Heretics have always reinterpreted even the most plainly clear passages of scripture to support their novel ideas. This is a pride problem, not a contents of scripture problem.
Yes, it's a bit like how leftist see the constitution as a "living docuмent" meaning you can interpret any way you want for one's ends. They twist and contort the wording so free speech doesn't include "hate speech" and the right to privacy surely includes unlimited wanton infanticide.
I recall how a one Barry Sotero, the constitutional law scholar from Harvard, claimed that the 2nd amendment was intended for hunters! It appears he forgot that an armed citizenenry just waged a war against a tyrannical government shortly before the constitution was written.
-
Why is there far more written text by Paul than direct quotes of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament? Does anyone find that peculiar? Jesus is Our Lord and Savior, so you would think that most of the text would be quotes and direct teachings from Him, not letters and text from a man who arrived on the scene after Christ's Life, Divine Sacrifice and Resurrection.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord
-
And I thought all of scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit no matter who exactly wrote it. Paul even calls himself an apostle of Christ, and of course we know this story as told in Acts. An apostle is someone who is called, taught, and sent by Christ.
-
Why is there far more written text by Paul than direct quotes of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament? Does anyone find that peculiar? Jesus is Our Lord and Savior, so you would think that most of the text would be quotes and direct teachings from Him, not letters and text from a man who arrived on the scene after Christ's Life, Divine Sacrifice and Resurrection.
Jesus was with apostles for 3 years and did not write anything as far as we know. The four gospels are written or dictated by people who were with Jesus during that time. Then Jesus left us. Did you want the New Testament to end there?
Paul was one of Jesus' biggest converts. His story is amazing. Why would it be strange for him to write prolifically after his conversion? Why would Paul not be inspired by the Holy Spirit to write to others to help them become Catholic?
-
Jesus was with apostles for 3 years and did not write anything as far as we know. The four gospels are written or dictated by people who were with Jesus during that time. Then Jesus left us.
Duh ya think?
Did you want the New Testament to end there?
Your question is retarded as it potentially becomes a circular argument (which is a logical fallacy), if addressed. Moreover, by your question, you sound as if you believe in "hermeneutic of continuity". So you "trads" out there who (rightfully) reject HoC, you're hypocrites for pointing and shaking your fingers at me for starting this thread.
Paul was one of Jesus' biggest converts. His story is amazing. Why would it be strange for him to write prolifically after his conversion? Why would Paul not be inspired by the Holy Spirit to write to others to help them become Catholic?
This is not a logical response to my question. It's not strange for him to write prolifically. I didn't say it was, nor did I question Paul being inspired by the Holy Spirit to help convert people to Christ. That's what saints do. They give their testimonies to help people convert but it's not included in Biblical canon like Paul's. I said it's peculiar that there are a lot more of Paul's text than quotes and direct teachings of Jesus Christ. So I'll ask, again: Why are there far more of Paul's texts than actual quotes and direct teachings by Jesus in the NT? Jesus should have more because He is Our Lord and Savior. He is whole. He is truth. To have a mere man come in on the scene after Jesus goes to Heaven, and have that man's letters become Biblical canon and outnumber what Jesus is quoted as saying while He dwelt among us, suggests some sort of discrepancy. If this wasn't the Bible under analysis, then it would only be reasonable to consider that what was started by the source wasn't sufficient, therefore, an addition had to be made outside of the source to make it complete; or the addition is some sort of hidden malevolence meant to corrupt those using it. Because there is no point in adding something if it's already complete and contains the whole truth or is working at 100% performance. So, back to the Bible, why would God have to make an addition to what His Son contributed? God is all-powerful. He easily could've finished the Bible by what His Son lived and spoke on earth.
-
Catholics refer to “Paul” as Saint Paul. Protestants tend to use just his given name. God gave us this great Saint as an example and to instruct us in the Faith, it’s not for us to question God’s wisdom and his ways. The OP is almost suggesting that God made some sort of mistake. From the OP’s second post he makes it somewhat clear that this is not the case, but I’m not understanding why a Catholic would ask such a question.
-
Catholics refer to “Paul” as Saint Paul. Protestants tend to use just his given name. God gave us this great Saint as an example and to instruct us in the Faith, it’s not for us to question God’s wisdom and his ways. The OP is almost suggesting that God made some sort of mistake. From the OP’s second post he makes it somewhat clear that this is not the case, but I’m not understanding why a Catholic would ask such a question.
That's not an answer. So the question still stands and waits to be answered.
-
Why are there far more of Paul's texts than actual quotes and direct teachings by Jesus in the NT?
But one may as well surmise" "What need was there of St. Paul and the other Apostles at all? After all, Jesus could have done everything they did, and He would have done it infinitely better."
The simple answer is, because that was part of God's plan, it's how God wanted His Church on earth to be established. Perhaps because St. Paul was one of the worst, God chose to make him one of the best explainers or teachers. The Fathers have written volumes explaining one simple sentence spoken by Our Lord in an attempt to get the fullness of the the sentence's meaning, so it should not be too surprising that there are far more texts from St. Paul than Our Lord.
-
Why is there far more written text by Paul than direct quotes of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament? Does anyone find that peculiar? Jesus is Our Lord and Savior, so you would think that most of the text would be quotes and direct teachings from Him, not letters and text from a man who arrived on the scene after Christ's Life, Divine Sacrifice and Resurrection.
I believe this was already answered in sacred scripture itself.
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." -John 21:25, Douay Rheims Bible
-
Yes, it's a bit like how leftist see the constitution as a "living docuмent" meaning you can interpret any way you want for one's ends. They twist and contort the wording so free speech doesn't include "hate speech" and the right to privacy surely includes unlimited wanton infanticide.
I recall how a one Barry Sotero, the constitutional law scholar from Harvard, claimed that the 2nd amendment was intended for hunters! It appears he forgot that an armed citizenenry just waged a war against a tyrannical government shortly before the constitution was written.
Well the constitution is not anything Catholic friendly in my opinion. It's the same precepts as the French revolution just worded differently, and without the bƖσσdshɛd to the extent of the French Revolution. (The Catholics didn't have the presence in the colonies the way France did)
-
I think the simple answer is that if Christ had written most of the New Testament, then anti-catholics could've easily attacked it as narcissistic and cultish. It would've come across as some kind of weird manifesto by some "loner". It could've been easily labled as the thoughts of a 'one person movement'.
The fact that the gospel was written by
a. Simple folk (i.e. apostles who were working-class)
b. former enemies (i.e. Paul, who first persecuted the christians)
c. educated classes (i.e. St Luke was a doctor and St Matthew was a tax collector).
d. All of these people (a cross section of society) died horrible deaths in support of Christ.
God knows what He is doing. The way the gospel was written
a. gives the most evidence for veracity (the people who wrote it all died in an effort to support it...and no one dies for a lie),
b. gives the least amount of bias (a cross-section of people followed Christ, which shows it was not some localized cult but a movement with a foundation), and
c. provides the most amount of historical evidence (since all of these people can be verified and have different perspectives/writing styles).
-
Why is there far more written text by Paul than direct quotes of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament? Does anyone find that peculiar? Jesus is Our Lord and Savior, so you would think that most of the text would be quotes and direct teachings from Him, not letters and text from a man who arrived on the scene after Christ's Life, Divine Sacrifice and Resurrection.
Why ask this question of the laity on this forum? What sort of answer are you expecting, or hoping for, since you don't seem to be satisfied with the answers provided so far?
-
Why is there far more written text by Paul than direct quotes of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament? Does anyone find that peculiar? Jesus is Our Lord and Savior, so you would think that most of the text would be quotes and direct teachings from Him, not letters and text from a man who arrived on the scene after Christ's Life, Divine Sacrifice and Resurrection.
p.s. St Paul was inspired by the Holy Ghost, as were ALL writers of Scripture. And since the Holy Ghost = Christ, then whatever the Holy Ghost says is what Christ says. For those of Faith, Christ DID write the Gospels, because the Holy Ghost wrote them and Christ and the Holy Ghost are co-equals, in every way.
But for human reasons, God also allowed humans to write the gospels, for reasons I already listed earlier.
-
Those critical of this question (trying to SHUT DOWN DISCUSSION) and the one who REPORTED THIS THREAD TO ME:
This is a discussion forum. It seems to me like an honest question. We are not going to ban, censor, or shut down legitimate discussion on my forum. You may "know it all" but some Catholics have things that bug them that they just don't know the answer to. They are free to ask those questions on CathInfo. In fact, I'm going to have to open the floodgates here, and say that TO ALL OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW SOMETHING, you are welcome to ask on CathInfo, and if this thread scares you away, YOU MAY USE THE ANONYMOUS FORUM to avoid this kind of criticism.
If you can't ask questions on CathInfo, then why even have a forum?
If he is IGNORANT of something (which is why you ask a question, hahaha!) then let's EDUCATE. Readers will learn a lot from the answers. I've seen some great answers in this thread, and I thank each one of THEM for their intelligent, charitable, and helpful responses.
As for the "other type" of responses -- I will decide what is allowed on CathInfo, and what is appropriate for discussion. Not various members. I really get annoyed sometimes when members try to bully other members (since no members have any real "power" per se -- there is only one moderator)
My advice to everyone: if someone tries to bully you, IGNORE THEM. There are as many opinions as there are people. But only ONE OPINION MATTERS as far as posting privileges on CathInfo goes. If I have a problem with you or your posts, you'll find out. But if I have no problem with you, but 100 other members do, then you stay.
CathInfo is not a schoolyard, high school, prison, collapsed state, or democracy. Cliques, jocks, bullies, and "popular girls" have no power here.
-
To answer your question:
Yes, I believe he's Catholic, and Trad Catholic at that. He's here on a Traditional Catholic forum. He's asking his question here, rather than some non-Catholic social media or forum. So he obviously wants to know, he wants the Catholic doctrine on the issue. So why not take his question seriously and try to help him?
-
Why is there far more written text by Paul than direct quotes of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament? Does anyone find that peculiar? Jesus is Our Lord and Savior, so you would think that most of the text would be quotes and direct teachings from Him, not letters and text from a man who arrived on the scene after Christ's Life, Divine Sacrifice and Resurrection.
My intuition says that you probably need a bit less online websites, current events, news and discussion, especially about earthly topics, and a bit more meditation on Scripture, the life of Our Lord, and other spiritual topics.
God's ways are not our ways. Dying on the cross doesn't seem to be a typical formula for starting an important organization. All the success and self-help books I've read never offer "self-abnegation" or "life of mortification" as the keys to success.
I would recommend reading more Scripture (with Catholic commentaries, of course) and good classic pre-Vatican II spiritual books. Maybe a bunch of Lives of the Saints too. "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ".
That is my advice, which you are free to do whatever you want with.
-
Duh ya think?
Your question is retarded as it potentially becomes a circular argument (which is a logical fallacy), if addressed. Moreover, by your question, you sound as if you believe in "hermeneutic of continuity". So you "trads" out there who (rightfully) reject HoC, you're hypocrites for pointing and shaking your fingers at me for starting this thread.
This is not a logical response to my question. It's not strange for him to write prolifically. I didn't say it was, nor did I question Paul being inspired by the Holy Spirit to help convert people to Christ. That's what saints do. They give their testimonies to help people convert but it's not included in Biblical canon like Paul's. I said it's peculiar that there are a lot more of Paul's text than quotes and direct teachings of Jesus Christ. So I'll ask, again: Why are there far more of Paul's texts than actual quotes and direct teachings by Jesus in the NT? Jesus should have more because He is Our Lord and Savior. He is whole. He is truth. To have a mere man come in on the scene after Jesus goes to Heaven, and have that man's letters become Biblical canon and outnumber what Jesus is quoted as saying while He dwelt among us, suggests some sort of discrepancy. If this wasn't the Bible under analysis, then it would only be reasonable to consider that what was started by the source wasn't sufficient, therefore, an addition had to be made outside of the source to make it complete; or the addition is some sort of hidden malevolence meant to corrupt those using it. Because there is no point in adding something if it's already complete and contains the whole truth or is working at 100% performance. So, back to the Bible, why would God have to make an addition to what His Son contributed? God is all-powerful. He easily could've finished the Bible by what His Son lived and spoke on earth.
The books of the "Biblical canon" are de fide for Catholics. The teaching that Sacred Scripture, which includes St. Paul's letters, is "inerrant" or "infallible" is de fide for Catholics. The de fide teachings can be confirmed by reading any dogmatic theology manual, like Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. I say this so you don't just think I'm just giving my opinion on these matters. This has already been settled by the Church and is part of the infallible Magisterium.
So, for Catholics, it is impossible, as matter of Faith, to consider that the inclusion of St. Paul's letters in the Biblical canon might be the result of "some sort of hidden malevolence."
EDIT: I know you said "if this wasn't the Bible under analysis" to preface your statement about "hidden malevolence." I see that you are not questioning the dogma directly. But some Catholics definitely do have similar "questions" and do not accept, or even know about, the dogmas. They then fall away from the Church because of their "vain curiosity." My statement is for those people, not you.
-
Those critical of this question (trying to SHUT DOWN DISCUSSION) and the one who REPORTED THIS THREAD TO ME:
This is a discussion forum. It seems to me like an honest question. We are not going to ban, censor, or shut down legitimate discussion on my forum. You may "know it all" but some Catholics have things that bug them that they just don't know the answer to. They are free to ask those questions on CathInfo. In fact, I'm going to have to open the floodgates here, and say that TO ALL OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW SOMETHING, you are welcome to ask on CathInfo, and if this thread scares you away, YOU MAY USE THE ANONYMOUS FORUM to avoid this kind of criticism.
If you can't ask questions on CathInfo, then why even have a forum?
If he is IGNORANT of something (which is why you ask a question, hahaha!) then let's EDUCATE. Readers will learn a lot from the answers. I've seen some great answers in this thread, and I thank each one of THEM for their intelligent, charitable, and helpful responses.
As for the "other type" of responses -- I will decide what is allowed on CathInfo, and what is appropriate for discussion. Not various members. I really get annoyed sometimes when members try to bully other members (since no members have any real "power" per se -- there is only one moderator)
My advice to everyone: if someone tries to bully you, IGNORE THEM. There are as many opinions as there are people. But only ONE OPINION MATTERS as far as posting privileges on CathInfo goes. If I have a problem with you or your posts, you'll find out. But if I have no problem with you, but 100 other members do, then you stay.
CathInfo is not a schoolyard, high school, prison, collapsed state, or democracy. Cliques, jocks, bullies, and "popular girls" have no power here.
That's ridiculous that people reported it. Just pearl-clutching. Oh, I also love when some members are like WHy iS ThiS ANonyMoUS?!! on the anonymous forum as if they are the police and they're usually know-it-alls. If they don't like it, they can ignore it or scoll away.
-
So, for Catholics, it is impossible, as matter of Faith, to consider that the inclusion of St. Paul's letters in the Biblical canon might be the result of "some sort of hidden malevolence."
Well said.
-
That's ridiculous that people reported it. Just pearl-clutching. Oh, I also love when some members are like WHy iS ThiS ANonyMoUS?!! on the anonymous forum as if they are the police and they're usually know-it-alls. If they don't like it, they can ignore it or scoll away.
Unless its graphic/ immodest by image or word to an extreme, why are people reporting something like the OP's question? Really?? C'mon now, friends..
-
Well, there is probably not a satifying answer to this question.
God's ways are mysterious.
I wonder too why the Old Testament is so long, giving us many details about people of marginal importance.
Let us be saints, so we can ask it directly to God when we meet Him.
-
Thank you Mendel, Pax Vobis, Matthew and Angelus for your contributions.