Who was Paul?

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 20 2005, 08:29 AM'] Apparently the point of Newman's writing, the type of Catholic he was describing, went right by you. [/quote]
Apparently not. I know what you are trying to do with Card. Newman.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='May 20 2005, 07:48 AM'] What does this have to do with spelling?

I was specifically talking about spelling.  It annoys me when people harp on spelling.  Especially on the internet.

Personally, I strive to spell correctly every time.  And while I am, by no means, defending anything Littleles puts up here, I am defending other people who are incredibly intelligent, and have something worth saying who happen to spell badly.

Have charity in all things. [/quote]
Hi Kilroy,

I think that anyone who spells a word the same way every time lacks imagination.

While not a heroic speller (I was happy to learn that there is no correlation between spelling ability and IQ), my real problem is keyboarding, especially when hurrying.

As I previously mentioned, the good Irish Christian Brothers wouldn't let me take typing. I had to take Latin every year instead. Of course, that's of immense practical value today!

LittleLes

Edited May 20, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

But moving along in debating Paul's role in the founding of Christianity - and this is for Myles or anyone else interested - was Paul really a Pharisee as he claimed to be?

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 20 2005, 07:08 AM']

You mention that I might want to check out apparently a thread which I can't open. Can you give me the "search" title or the URL? Thanks!

LittleLes [/quote]
Strange, the link works just fine on my computer.

However, if your computer doesn't work, the thread is titled "Divinity of Christ," subtitled "Scriptures and Church Fathers" and is by "Socrates." I will bump it to the top - you should be able to find it if you look.

[LittleLes]

Hi Myles,

I don't want to get off topic here, but something in one of your previous messages came to mind.

Did I undertand correctly that you are presently taking a scripture course, perhaps involving textural criticism? If you are, and it wouldn't be inconvenient, I'd be interested in your professors views regarding Matthew 28, the instruction to use the Trinitine baptismal formula.

It's sometimes called the Constantine ending to Matthew, and the suggestion is that it, like Mark 1:1, contains a later addition. It doesn't seem logical that the Trinity is referred to here, and a priest I am acquainted with (but whose background in textual criticism I don't know) claims there are at least two variant reading without this formula.

Does your teacher have an opinion?

Although addressed to Myles, I'd appreciate it if anyone else has specific information regarding Matthew 28.

Regards,
Les

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 20 2005, 11:42 AM'] Strange, the link works just fine on my computer.

However, if your computer doesn't work, the thread is titled "Divinity of Christ," subtitled "Scriptures and Church Fathers" and is by "Socrates." I will bump it to the top - you should be able to find it if you look. [/quote]
Thanks, Socrates,

I'll take a look

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

(1) Despite Paul's claim to be a Pharisee and to have trained under Gamaliel, the information found in Acts of the Apostles, if historical, strongly suggests that Paul was not.

(2) The original followers of Jesus, the Nazarenes, were orthodox Jews, practicing circumcision and keeping the dietary laws. They observed the Jewish Sabbeth and were members of the Temple cult. Their only difference from the Pharisees was that they regarded Jesus as the promised messiah. Not a problem since others were also recognized as potential messiahs by the Pharisees.

(3) Gamaliel I, a much respected rabbi and leader of the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin, grouped Jesus with other messiah-like Pharisees such as Theudas and Judas the Galilean, both of whom had led uprisings against Rome and had been executed by the Romans. Gamaliel wanted to see if the Jesus movement would be proven to have been from God and hence messianic. (See Acts 5).

(4) The Sadduces, however, who controlled the Temple and the chief priest position under Roman oversight, strongly opposed any messianic movement that would drive out the Romans who kept them in power.

(5) Paul does not side with the Pharisees but became an agent of the high priest and sought out Nazorenes thought to be insurgents against Roman control.

(6) Paul claimed to be from Tarsus, a Gentile city (although he does not mention this in any of his letters). He claimed to be a Roman citizen which would be favorable to the Sadducees but not the Pharisees. And he admits to hunting down Nazorenes. None of this is compatible with his being a Pharisee.

(7) Could Paul have been a Gentile who later converted?

Edited May 21, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

Contradictions in Paul's accounts.

In Acts Paul tells three slightly different versions of the incident on the road to Damascus in which he heard Jesus' voice (from without) speaking to him.

But in Galatians, written in 54 - 55 A.D., long before Acts, he has a different version of how he gained his knowledge of Jesus.

"Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.

For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. "

In short, Paul claims that he didn't learn what he knew of Jesus message from Jesus' apostles or disciples.

There is nothing here about a miracle and Jesus speaking to him from without. It was revealed special knowledge that he possessed. But this is also gnostic special knowledge.

Edited May 23, 2005 by LittleLes

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 19 2005, 04:38 AM'] I'll defend to the death your right to be wrong!!!!! [/quote]
Why am I wrong?

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 19 2005, 04:58 AM']Only one, actually. I exist.   Everything else is of lesser certitude. [/quote]
Since you are certain only in your existence, are you certain about your interpretations of the bible?

[Archangel]

St. John Chrysotom explains in his Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles the significance of Paul's saying that he is a Pharisee.

[quote]"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both."

AGAIN he discourses simply as man, and he does not on all occasions alike enjoy the benefit of supernatural aid. "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee:" both in this, and in what comes after it, [b]he wished to divide the multitude, which had an evil unanimity against him. And he does not speak a falsehood here either: for he was a Pharisee by descent from his ancestors.[/b] "Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." For since they would not say for what reason they arraigned him, he is compelled therefore to declare it himself. "But the Pharisees," it says, "confess both." And yet there are three things: how then does he say both? "Spirit and Angel" is put as one. When he is on their side, then they plead for him. "And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but"what) "if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?" (v. 9.) Why did they not plead for him before this? Do you observe, how, when the passions give way, the truth is discovered? Where is the crime, say they, if an angel has spoken to him, or a spirit? Paul gives them no handle against him. "And when there arose a great dissension, the tribune, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle." (v. 10.) [b]The tribune is afraid of his being pulled in pieces, now that he has said that he is a Roman: and the matter was not without danger. Do you observe that Paul had a right to profess himself a Roman?[/b] Else, neither would (the tribune) have been afraid now. So it remains that the soldiers must bear him off by force. But when the wretches saw all to be without avail, they take the whole matter into their own hands, as they would fain have done before, but were prevented: and their wickedness stops nowhere, though it received so many checks: and yet how many things were providentially ordered, on purpose that they might settle down from their rage, and learn those things through which they might possibly recover themselves! But none the less do they set upon him. [b]Sufficient for proof of his innocence was even this, that the man was saved when at the point to be pulled in pieces, and that with these so great dangers about him, he escaped them all.[/b]
[/quote]

[Archangel]

St. John Chrysostom explains in his Commentary on Galations that Paul's [u]sudden[/u] conversion from a persecutor of Christians and instruction in the Gospel was through Divine revelation.

[quote]But now he speaks of his former manner of life and says, Ver. 11, 12. "For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the Gospel which was preached by me that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ."

You observe how sedulously he affirms that he was taught of Christ, who Himself, without human intervention, condescended to reveal to him all knowledge. [b]And if he were asked for his proof that God Himself thus immediately revealed to him these ineffable mysteries, he would instance his former manner of life, [u]arguing that his conversion would not have been so sudden, had it not been by Divine revelation.[/u] For when men have been vehement and eager on the contrary side, their conviction, if it is effected by human means, requires much time and ingenuity. [u]It is clear therefore that he, whose conversion is sudden, and who has been sobered in the very height of his madness, must have been vouchsafed a Divine revelation and teaching,[/u] and so have at once arrived at complete sanity.[/b] On this account he is obliged to relate his former life, and to call the Galatians as witnesses of past events. That the Only-Begotten Son of God had Himself from heaven vouchsafed to call me, says he, you who were not present, could not know, but that I was a persecutor you do know. For my violence even reached your ears, and the distance between Palestine and Galatia is so great, that the report would not have extended thither, had not my acts exceeded all bounds and endurance. Wherefore he says, Ver. 13. "For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and made havoc of it."

Observe how he shrinks not from aggravating each point; not saying simply that he "persecuted" but "beyond measure," and not only "persecuted" but "made havoc of it," which signifies an attempt to extinguish, to pull down, to destroy, to annihilate, the Church.

Ver. 14. "And I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers."

To obviate the notion that his persecution arose from passion, vain-glory, or enmity, he shows that he was actuated by zeal, not indeed "according to knowledge," (Rom. x: 2.) still by a zealous admiration of the traditions of his fathers. [b]This is his argument;--if my efforts against the Church sprung not from human motives, but from religious though mistaken zeal, why should I be actuated by vain-glory, now that I am contending for the Church, and have embraced the truth? If it was not this motive, but a godly zeal, which possessed me when I was in error, much more now that I have come to know the truth, ought I to be free from such a suspicion. [u]As soon as I passed over to the doctrines of the Church I shook off my Jewish prejudices, manifesting on that side a zeal still more ardent; and this is a proof that my conversion is sincere, and that the zeal which possesses me is from above.[/u] What other inducement could I have to make such a change, and to barter honor for contempt, repose for peril, security for distress? none surely but the love of truth.[/b] [/quote]

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 20 2005, 08:07 AM']Hi Myles,

I don't want to get off topic here, but something in one of your previous messages came to mind.

Did I undertand correctly that you are presently taking a scripture course, perhaps involving textural criticism? If you are, and it wouldn't be inconvenient, I'd be interested in your professors views regarding Matthew 28, the instruction to use the Trinitine baptismal formula.

It's sometimes called the Constantine ending to Matthew, and the suggestion is that it, like Mark 1:1, contains a later addition. It doesn't seem logical that the Trinity is referred to here, and a priest I am acquainted with (but whose background in textual criticism I don't know) claims there are at least two variant reading without this formula.

Does your teacher have an opinion?

Although addressed to Myles, I'd appreciate it if anyone else has specific information regarding Matthew 28.

Regards,
Les[/quote]
Trinitarian Baptism was in place by the end of the 1st century:

"After the foregoing instructions, [b]baptize in the name of the [u]Father[/u], and of the [u]Son[/u], and of the [u]Holy Spirit[/u],[/b] in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 24 2005, 02:13 AM'] Since you are certain only in your existence, are you certain about your interpretations of the bible? [/quote]
"Seek such truth as the nature of the thing allows." Aquinas

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 24 2005, 03:15 AM'] St. John Chrysostom explains in his Commentary on Galations that Paul's [u]sudden[/u] conversion from a persecutor of Christians and instruction in the Gospel was through Divine revelation.

[/quote]
The "suddenness" of his conversion, itself described only by Paul, is no gaurantee of divine revelation. As has been pointed out, it is consistent with an adjustment to a psychological conflict. Visions can be also!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 24 2005, 04:18 AM'] Trinitarian Baptism was in place by the end of the 1st century:

"After the foregoing instructions, [b]baptize in the name of the [u]Father[/u], and of the [u]Son[/u], and of the [u]Holy Spirit[/u],[/b] in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]). [/quote]
I'm afraid that you have seriously misdated the Didache. The Didache was written and edited over a period of about a hundred or more years. It may have been started in 70 A.D but that's not its completion date.

If you read Acts of the Apostles, you will find four descriptions of baptism. All are in the name of Jesus alone. Acts is thought to have been finalized in the last two decades of the first century.

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 24 2005, 05:15 AM']"Seek such truth as the nature of the thing allows." Aquinas[/quote]
St. Thomas Aquinas also says:

[quote][b]Our Lord says, "I am the Way, [u]the Truth[/u], and the Life" [/b](Jn. 14:6).

I answer that, As said above (1), truth is found in the intellect according as it apprehends a thing as it is; and in things according as they have being conformable to an intellect. This is to the greatest degree found in God. For His being is not only conformed to His intellect, but it is the very act of His intellect; and His act of understanding is the measure and cause of every other being and of every other intellect, and He Himself is His own existence and act of understanding. Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that [b]He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth.[/b][/quote]

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 24 2005, 05:22 AM']The "suddenness" of his conversion, itself described only by Paul, is no gaurantee of divine  revelation. As has been pointed out, it is consistent with an adjustment to a psychological conflict. Visions can be also! [/quote]
Of course St. Paul is the only one to describe his conversion in Galations: he wrote the letter.

Acts 9 describes the details of his sudden conversion:

[quote]4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, [b]"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" [/b]
5 He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, [b]"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[/b]
6 Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do." [/quote]

His divine encounter with Jesus was genuine, just continue reading Acts 9:

[quote]7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for [b]they heard the voice but could see no one.[/b] [/quote]

Or did the men have "psychological conflicts" as well?

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 24 2005, 05:26 AM']I'm afraid that you have seriously misdated the Didache. The Didache was written and edited over a period of about a hundred or more years. It may have been started in 70 A.D but that's not its completion date.

If you read Acts of the Apostles, you will find four descriptions of baptism. All are in the name of Jesus alone. Acts is thought to have been finalized in the last two decades of the first century.[/quote]
I'm not the one seriously misdating the Didache, you are.

The Didache was written earlier than you believe. You can read about it here: [url="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html"]http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html[/url]

Here are some quotes:

[quote]Hence a date for the Didache in its present form later than the second century must be considered unlikely, and a date before the end of the first century probable. [/quote]

[quote]Of course today, when the similarities between the Didache and Barnabas, or the Shepherd of Hermas, are no longer taken as proof that the Didache is literarily dependent upon these documents, the trend is to date the Didache much earlier, at least by the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, and in the case of Jean-P. Audet, as early as 50-70 C.E.[/quote]

[quote]The Didache means by 'the gospel' (8.2; 11.3; 15.3, 4) the Gospel of Matthew; thus the Didache, which originated about 110 CE, documents the emerging authority of the one great Gospel.[/quote]



St. Thomas Aquinas explains why the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus in Acts:

[quote]It was by a special revelation from Christ that in the primitive Church the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; [b]in order that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and Gentiles, might become an object of veneration,[/b] in that the Holy Ghost was given in Baptism at the invocation of that Name. [/quote]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 26 2005, 04:29 AM'] Of course St. Paul is the only one to describe his conversion in Galations: he wrote the letter.

Acts 9 describes the details of his sudden conversion:



His divine encounter with Jesus was genuine, just continue reading Acts 9:



Or did the men have "psychological conflicts" as well? [/quote]
Actually, if you read Acts, you will find three conflicting accounts of Paul's conversion. Either those with him saw the light but did not hear the voice, or heard the voice but did not see the light, or all fell to the ground. In Galatians, written earlier, Paul speaks of his conversion without any reference to falling off the horce, seeing the light, or hearing the voice.

So we have four accounts all in "inspired" scripture, but all differing significantly. Which do you think is historical (that is, really happened)?

I'd go with Paul simply thinking that the "voice" he heard was that of Jesus. I have several aquaintances who claim to have heard voices and in some cases seen visions. But none claimed them as proof of religious leadership. And with a little resperidol, all got over their visions!