Who was Paul?

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 10 2005, 01:09 PM']I'm suggesting  that you interpret what was written as what was meant at the time it was written.

Geneologies always proceeded through the man who's "seed" was considered to contain the entire offspring (homunculus or "little man"), rather than trying to employ a later claim.

Did you notice that when geneologies are given,  including Jesus'  in Matthew and Luke, these were exclusively through biological fathers never through the mother?

One can use the term "seed" broadly as Jesus being born of the "seed of David" but this, too, means male lines.
[right][snapback]608762[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Interesting that you mention the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, for both these Gospels explicitly tell of Christ's virginal conception!

Edited June 10, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 10 2005, 02:10 PM']Interesting that you mention the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, for both these Gospels explicitly tell of Christ's virginal conception! 
[right][snapback]608812[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Think this one through, Socrates. Did Matthew (and Luke) originally claim a virginal conception? Or was that claim added? Note that Paul, writing before either, reports a natural birth, and Mark, from whom Matthew and Luke copied, says nothing about a virgin birth. But then Jesus never referred to it either.

The original Messianic Jews, followers of the Way or Nazarenes , of the Jerusalem community are said to have used a gospel of Matthew evidently without a virginal birth account.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits this since it can't get around this fact since there are too many early writings that support it:

"They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3)."

[Aloysius]

you have no proof it was added...

did I miss something? where does Paul report a natural birth? WHERE!???!!!

[dspen2005]

he was the Apostle to the Gentiles... promulgating the faith to those who were outside the Jewish ethic.... presumably, without Paul, Christiainity would not the global force it is today.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 10 2005, 03:57 PM']you have no proof it was added...

did I miss something?  where does Paul report a natural birth?  WHERE!???!!!
[right][snapback]608920[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

(1) For a list of references to the early Church fathers regarding the early gospel of Matthew used by the first century Palestinians, see the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Ebionites. The references given can be called up on New Advent's church fathers.

(2) See Paul's Galatian 4:4 and Romans 1:1-3.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 10 2005, 07:13 PM'](1) For a list of references to the early Church fathers regarding the early gospel of Matthew used by the first century Palestinians, see the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Ebionites. The references given can be called up on New Advent's  church fathers.

(2) See Paul's Galatian 4:4 and Romans 1:1-3.
[right][snapback]609032[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Haven't we been over all this before?

(1) The Ebionites were a distinct sect from the orthodox Christians and there is no evidence that they were the original first century Christians. Reference to them only begins well into in the second century.

You have no evidence that the origninal Christians disbeleived in Christ's divinity. This is pure conjecture.

(2)
Romans 1:3: "...the gospel about [b]his Son[/b], descended from David according to the flesh,..."

Galatians 4:4-5 "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent [b]his Son[/b], born of a woman, born under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption."

God is the Father of Christ. Mary is His mother. There is no denial of Christ's divine patrimony here, but rather an affirmation of it.

Your game's getting old, Littleles. (yawn)

Edited June 11, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 10 2005, 08:40 PM']Haven't we been over all this before?

(1) The Ebionites were a distinct sect from the orthodox Christians and there is no evidence that they were the original first century Christians.  Reference to them only begins well into in the second century.

You have no evidence that the origninal Christians disbeleived in Christ's divinity.  This is pure conjecture.

(2) 
Romans 1:3: "...the gospel about [b]his Son[/b], descended from David according to the flesh,..."

Galatians 4:4-5 "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent [b]his Son[/b], born of a woman, born under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption."

God is the Father of Christ.  Mary is His mother.  There is no denial of Christ's divine patrimony here, but rather an affirmation of it.

Your game's getting old, Littleles.  (yawn)
[right][snapback]609049[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I thought we had been over this too. What part are you having trouble understanding?

(1) The tern "Ebionites" was a a name applied later to the Nazarenes, the originial followers of Jesus. The Nazorenes and the sect called "the Way" are mentioned in Acts. They were the original Palestinian Christians.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia maintains:

"Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term did not originally designate any heretical sect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe the Mosaic Law. These, ceasing to be in touch with the bulk of the Christian world, would gradually have drifted away from the standard of orthodoxy and become formal heretics."


The fact that the Jews considered the Nazorenes orthodox Jews and had no objection to them worshipping in the Temple (again, see Acts), evidences that the Nazorenes did not claim Jesus to be divine at that point. The Jews, practicing strict monotheism, would not have tolerated worship of another diety. (Or are you trying to claim that the Jews too believed Jesus to be divine?)

(2) Rom 1:3: "descended from David according to the flesh." No claim or reporting of a virgin birth here. All of us descend from someone according to the flesh, ie. sexual conception and a natural birth.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]Is iam exertus ut unus. quod deficio misericorditer. ut usitas.[/quote]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 10 2005, 12:59 PM']It is far better to use the earliest extant versions of biblical texts in the original languages rather than later Latin translations that have been corrupted.  This was done by the New American Bible ( National Conference of Catholic Bishops) and the New Revised Standard Vewrsion (World Conference of Churches).

Jerome's complaint to Pope Damasus that there were about as many Latin versions as there were manuscripts (eg Luke 24:4-5 had a least 27 variant readings) was made before Jerome introduced his own interpolations for doctrinal reasons.

For example, 1 Cor 9:5 has Paul asking why he couldn't be accompanied on his missionary journeys by a wife as were the other apostles, brothers of Jesus, and Peter. Jerome first translated the Greek "gune" correctly as the Latin "uxor" then unambigiously "wife," but later changed this to "mulier"  a "sister" or "woman" rather than a wife. Thus biblical support could be claimed for celebacy.

And of course there is Jerome's famous "Tobias nights" interpolation in Tobias 8 in which he has Tobias pray for three nights before consumating his marriage to Sarah to prove the exclusively procreative reason for marriage.

Comparing the Douay Rheims on-line old Vulgate to either of the above translations evidences these interpolations.
[right][snapback]608748[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Whatever.....we have been over this before.....you can't defend that position. You have been shown to be unable to defend it in the past. We will not go back to that again.....nice try.....do you even know what I said? I doubt it.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 11 2005, 07:25 AM']I thought we had been over this too. What part are you having trouble understanding?

(1) The tern "Ebionites" was a a name applied later to the Nazarenes, the originial followers of Jesus. The  Nazorenes and the sect called "the Way" are mentioned in Acts. They were the original Palestinian Christians.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia maintains:

"Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term did not originally designate any heretical sect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe the Mosaic Law. These, ceasing to be in touch with the bulk of the Christian world, would gradually have drifted away from the standard of orthodoxy and become formal heretics."
The fact that the Jews considered the Nazorenes orthodox Jews and had no objection to them worshipping in the Temple (again, see Acts), evidences that the Nazorenes did not claim Jesus to be divine at that point. The Jews, practicing strict monotheism, would not have tolerated worship of another diety. (Or are you trying to claim that the Jews too believed Jesus to be divine?)

(2)  Rom 1:3:  "descended from David according to the flesh." No claim or reporting of a virgin birth here. All of us descend from someone according to the flesh, ie. sexual conception and a natural birth.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]609169[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have already addressed the whole Ebionite thing.....You are misinterpreting the Catholic Encyclopedia. I have offered proof that is contemporary to the Ebionite sect and you poo poo it for being too modern, because it 13 years outside your ridiculous criteria.

And Socrates has already shown you where Romans 1:3 goes.

LittleLes, you are following a very predictable pattern. When you don't have an argument, you go back to a claim that you made earlier. It doesn't matter that you can't defend that position.

If you want to drudge up the whole Ebionite thing again, that is fine, I will make you look foolish again. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not the end all be all about the Ebionite heresy. That is right, heresy......Do we want to revisit this, or do we want to stay on topic. I would vote for the latter.....I really don't enjoy making you look bad.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 11 2005, 08:58 AM']Whatever.....we have been over this before.....you can't defend that position.  You have been shown to be unable to defend it in the past.  We will not go back to that again.....nice try.....do you even know what I said?  I doubt it.
[right][snapback]609172[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The technical term for LittleLes' post is: "grasping at straws."

[Cam42]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 11 2005, 10:15 AM']The technical term for LittleLes' post is: "grasping at straws." 
[right][snapback]609214[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


LOL

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 11 2005, 07:58 AM']Whatever.....we have been over this before.....you can't defend that position.  You have been shown to be unable to defend it in the past.  We will not go back to that again.....nice try.....do you even know what I said?  I doubt it.
[right][snapback]609172[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No defense is necessary. A simle comparison of the Douay Rheims, An English translation of the Vulgate, and translations made from the earliest extant texts in the original languages, such as the New American Bible or the New Revised Standard Version clearly evidence some of the interpolations made by Jerome for doctrinal reasons.

I don't have to prove anything. It already has been proven.

[LittleLes]

Acts 5:

But a Pharisee in the Sanhedrin named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up, ordered the men to be put outside for a short time,
35
and said to them, "Fellow Israelites, be careful what you are about to do to these men.
36
7 Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be someone important, and about four hundred men joined him, but he was killed, and all those who were loyal to him were disbanded and came to nothing.
37
After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census. He also drew people after him, but he too perished and all who were loyal to him were scattered.
38
So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself.
39
But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God." They were persuaded by him.

Is it seriously to be maintained that the Jewish leadership in spite of its strict monotheism would tolerate within their midst a sect which claimed the divinity of its founder?

There had been a number of claims to messiahship as Gamaleil notes. The Jewish leadership had no problem with Jesus' claim to messiahship. Or any claims about "Son of God" or "Son of Man." But they certainly would have had very strong objection to any claim he made of divinity!

Sorry, CAM. No straws need be grasped at. Act's provides the clear evidence.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 11 2005, 10:55 AM']No defense is necessary. A simle comparison of the Douay Rheims, An English translation of the Vulgate, and translations made from the earliest extant texts in the original languages, such as the New American Bible or the New Revised Standard Version clearly evidence some of the interpolations made by Jerome for doctrinal reasons.

I don't have to prove anything. It already has been proven.
[right][snapback]609226[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, it has been proven, that you are wrong.....

[quote]Sorry, CAM. No straws need be grasped at. Act's provides the clear evidence.[/quote]

I don't believe that I said anything about grasping at straws...

I notice that you didn't expound anything new on the Ebionite heresy....it is because you don't have a leg to stand on.

[LittleLes]

Proven that I am wrong? Really? Lets compare the Douay Rheims, the English translation of the Vulgate, and the New American Bible on these two pasages.

1 Cor 9: 5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (Douay Rheims).

or

1 Cor 9:5 Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas? (NAB)

To push celebacy a "woman" or a "sister" was tolerable, but not a "wife."

Tobias 8: 4 Then Tobias exhorted the virgin, and said to her: Sara, arise, and let us pray to God today, and tomorrow, and the next day: because for these three nights we are joined to God: and when the third night is over, we will be in our own wedlock. (Douay Rheims).

or

Tobias 8:4-6 When the girl's parents left the bedroom and closed the door behind them, Tobiah arose from bed and said to his wife, "My love, get up. Let us pray and beg our Lord to have mercy on us and to grant us deliverance." She got up, and they started to pray and beg that deliverance might be theirs. He began with these words: "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers; praised be your name forever and ever. Let the heavens and all your creation praise you forever. You made Adam and you gave him his wife Eve to be his help and support; and from these two the human race descended. You said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a partner like himself.' (NAB)

And so Tobias got to consumate his marriage on the first night because "It is not God for man to be alone."

Jerome omitted all of that an had Tobias and Sarah pray for three nights before consumating their marriage so he could deemphasize its sexual aspect.

Sufficient proof, CAM?

QED!