Is it not True?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 12:13 PM'] It would follow that he did... why is that so surprising, considering he was persecuting the Church at that time? [/quote]
You might want to re-read [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts17.htm#v23"]Acts 17:23[/url]. St. Paul was most certainly a believer.

Also, I vaguely recall (I might be totally wrong!) St. Paul saying that some false god's were the product of devils, while others were just people's imagination.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 01:13 PM'] It would follow that he did... why is that so surprising, considering he was persecuting the Church at that time? [/quote]
You're kidding right?....

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 11:13 AM'] It would follow that he did... why is that so surprising, considering he was persecuting the Church at that time? [/quote]
It helps to actually read the Bible from time to time so that you can at least sort of look like you know what you're talking about.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Dec 1 2004, 12:26 PM'] You're kidding right?.... [/quote]
I am not aware of the passage--I assumed it was before his conversion.

If it was after, I would assume he was praying to Christ at that "altar" but not TO the "unknown god".

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 01:32 PM'] I am not aware of the passage--I assumed it was before his conversion.

If it was after, I would assume he was praying to Christ at that "altar" but not TO the "unknown god". [/quote]
How about instead of assuming, you actually read the passage.

[Guest Aluigi]

yeah read the passage

he told the people that the unknown God was Christ. they converted because of it.

[Guest Aluigi]

22 But Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious. 23 For passing by and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the Unknown God. What therefore you worship without knowing it, that I preach to you: 24 God, who made the world and all things therein, he being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands. 25 Neither is he served with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing: seeing it is he who giveth to all life and breath and all things: 26 And hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times and the limits of their habitation. 27 That they should seek God, if haply they may feel after him or find him, although he be not far from every one of us. 28 For in him we live and move and are: as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring. 29 Being therefore the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold or silver or stone, the graving of art and device of man. 30 And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men that all should every where do penance. 31 Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed: giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead

He used that "unknown god" and said, you worship without knowing- Christ is the God unknown to you.

when you start contradicting scripture, you should take a second look at your outlook.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 11:13 AM'] It would follow that he did... why is that so surprising, considering he was persecuting the Church at that time? [/quote]
Even if your presumption was correct-- which it's not-- are you saying that Saul of Tarsus, a devout Jew, would worship at the alter of a pagan god?

[cmotherofpirl]

Or maybe you should actually READ Scripture before you discuss it. You have already stated elsewhere you don't read the Bible much.

Edited December 1, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[amarkich]

Thank you for all the judging, everyone (and it was not even against me). Now, your own personal interpretation of the meaning of the acts of Saint Paul does not constitute as an argument against an explicit teaching of the Bible (Psalm XCV). Further, to cmom and others, I am quite sure that Matthew reads the Bible very often because we go to daily Mass, that means there is plenty of Bible reading everyday. Please do not take things out of context. He and I have said in past threads (which seems to be a scandal to some, which is the main reason I remember saying it) that we do not read the Bible indiscriminately, just picking it up and reading without any logical guidance. This seems to be something that is often encouraged nowadays, but it makes little sense; we still 'read' the Bible very often at daily Mass as well as other devotions that involved certain parts of the Bible.


The same problems are seen in the Missal of the Novus Ordo. Rather than having a set Mass (or Masses) for Doctors, Martyrs, etc (known as the Common of the Saints), the Novus Ordo just picks out verses (seemingly at random) for daily Mass. The verses from the Bible do not correlate at all to the Saint of the day. This is a huge problem for several reasons. The biggest problem, however, is that the actual parts of the Bible have no meaning really. They are simply read once per year (or every three years, with the A, B, C calendar...) without any real impact on the faithful. This is not so in the Old Mass (and, presumably, in the Eastern Rites). With the Common of the Saints, the Mass and the prayers in the Mass become something that is learned and understood by the people; it has an actual effect on them. Some common Masses are [i]Salve sancta parens[/i], [i]Os justi[/i], among others. Further, certain verses are often common among many Masses, even if they occur at different parts (not just the Introit). [i]Juravit Dominus et non poenitebit eum: tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech[/i] and [i]De profundis clamavi ad te Domine: Domine exaudi vocem (or orationem) meam[/i]. With these verses and prayers being so common in different Masses, they become engrained in the faithful rather than simply acting as "the next part of Saint John's Gospel", as my old NO priest would explain as he gave the sermons at daily Mass, i.e., rather than simply going through the numerical order of a Gospel, regardless of the Feast day of the Saint, the Mass's prayers are relevant to the Saint's Feast, and, on top of that, the recurring element of the Common of the Saints benefits the faithful by actually impacting them, rather than acting as empty words.


Anyway, that was more of a rant than anything; the whole point of the thread has been ignored. The Bible explicitly says that the gods of the Gentiles (pagan gods) are devils. No one believes this anymore; and sadly, the "phaithful" here are no different. In any event, the previous argument concerning Saint Paul is a weak argument. It is a personal interpretation not only of a teaching in the Bible, but, even worse, an action of a person in the Bible. When such an interpretation contradicts other explicit statements in the Bible, the teaching of the Saints, and the teaching of Tradition, it must be discarded.


Edit: Sorry for not spacing out the original; I hope this is more easily read.

Edited December 1, 2004 by amarkich

[Don John of Austria]

He said that the Unknown god was the pagans acknowledgement of GOD I would remind you that the altar was small and little used sort of a cya altar so as not to tic off any God they might have missed, there was no formal worship of the unknown god he was " UNKNOWN" He was infact NOT a Pagan god according to saint PAul but GOD so he is not one of the gods of the pagans he was the God of The Jews ergo not a devil. So in answer Paul was worshiping God at the Alter to the unknown God.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]The Bible explicitly says that the gods of the Gentiles (pagan gods) are devils. No one believes this anymore; and sadly, the "phaithful" here are no different. [/quote]

Hey thats not fair I believe it, Good friday believes it, I'd wager Winchester believes it ( his quib about eating cows not withstanding) as well as some others-- Some of us certianly do believe it so saying that NOONE believes it is really not fair.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Dec 1 2004, 12:31 PM'] It helps to actually read the Bible from time to time so that you can at least sort of look like you know what you're talking about. [/quote]
Typical kind of uncharitable remarks ignored by mods simply because you have a little flag next to your name, but if any "phishy" person makes any comment whatsoever that a person MIGHT think to be "uncharitable" toward the current hierarchy, especially the Pope, then he is labeled an uncharitable monster, censored, suspended, etc.

Typical...

[cmotherofpirl]

Maybe you have so angered people with your attitude and disrespect people are getting a little fed up.

Maybe a lot fed up.

Maybe you have a lot of good information, but people can't see what you say becuase they are so upset how you say it.

Charity is the form, mover, mother, and root of all virtues.
-St. Thomas Aquinas-

so is Tact.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 01:33 PM'] Typical kind of uncharitable remarks ignored by mods simply because you have a little flag next to your name, but if any "phishy" person makes any comment whatsoever that a person MIGHT think to be "uncharitable" toward the current hierarchy, especially the Pope, then he is labeled an uncharitable monster, censored, suspended, etc.

Typical... [/quote]
You yourself admitted to not reading the bible except what you hear/read in daily mass. While I find it vurtuous to attend daily mass, you are not really prepared to discuss the subject at hand (Acts 17) unless you read it. If you had, you would have realized that it pertained to after St. Paul's conversion. That is simple to see and I can't see how that would be the kind of private interpritation you worry so much about. You, in your statement, either said or strongly implied that you didn't really know what you were talking about.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I'm going to write a short tract on the passages at hand later, when I get back from class tonight. I hope that someone with my mythology knowledge will be able to explain this. Oh, and if anyone tries to use the daily Mass thing as proof to outweigh me, I will explain that going to daily Mass doesn't necessarily mean anything, and if no one accepts that, then I will say how often I go to Mass. Back later, my friends.

[cmotherofpirl]

especially if the Mass readings are in Latin.

[amarkich]

Don John of Austria, sorry, I did not mean to include everyone in that. I am happy that there are some who do agree. God bless.

[Mateo el Feo]

First: CatholicCrusader, Cmom is right. You come across as quite uncharitable (sometimes condescending) toward others. Not nice.

Second: why not quote [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians10.htm#v20"]1 Corinthians 10:20[/url]?

Third:
[quote name='Don John of Austria']I would remind you that the altar was small and little used sort of a cya altar so as not to tic off any God they might have missed[/quote]
I just about fell out of my chair laughing when I read this sentence. Too funny!

[Guest Aluigi]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 1 2004, 01:28 PM'] He said that the Unknown god was the pagans acknowledgement of GOD  I would remind you that the altar was small and little used sort of a cya  altar so as not to tic off any God they might have missed, there was no formal worship of the unknown god he was " UNKNOWN" He was infact NOT a Pagan god according to saint PAul but GOD so he is not one of the gods of the pagans he was the God of The Jews ergo not a devil.  So in answer Paul was worshiping God at the Alter to the unknown God. [/quote]
This is all I was saying. Polar Bear asked about the unknown god, I said it was not a pagan god and thus not a devil.

I said that Paul worshipped Jesus at the altar of the unknown God, and that it was not a pagan god.

Edited December 1, 2004 by Aluigi