Who was Paul?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 26 2005, 04:38 AM'] 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:









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



[/quote]

When are you claiming that the final editing (additions etc) of the Didache occurred? In the secod century perhaps? Why do you think that the Acts of the Apotles has four descriptions of Baptism, all only in the name of Jesus, not the Trinity?

And when as Acts written?

According to the New American Bible:

"Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke's Gospel (Luke 13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20; 23:28-31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80-90 as the time of composition."

So around 80 - 90 A.D. we still are seeing baptism in the name of Jesus alone. Matthew was probably written earlier and contains one of the only two accounts of the Trinity. The other, in 1 John 5 has now been deleted as being an addition from the sixth century. So Matthew's too seems to be of a later date.

The doctrine of the Trinity dates from the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Eusebius and others maintained records of that council. Curiously, neither Matt 28, nor 1 John was introduced as evidence of the existence of the Trinity. Why do you think that was?

Edited May 26, 2005 by LittleLes

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 26 2005, 03:55 AM']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! [/quote]
The accounts do not "conflict" nor do they differ "significantly". You are just trying to introduce a straw man to divert attention away from the topic at hand: the conversion of Paul from a divine encounter with Jesus.

Since you go with Paul hearing a voice, then you are going with the accounts in Acts and not Galations because, as you said, there is no reference to Paul hearing a voice in his account in Galations.

With that, let us look at the accounts in Acts:

[quote]Acts 9
3 On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, [b]a light from the sky[/b] suddenly flashed around him.
4 He fell to the ground and [b]heard a voice[/b] saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"
5 He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
6 Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do."
7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for [b]they heard the voice but could see no one.[/b] [/quote]
Light: YES
Voice: YES
Witnesses: YES

[quote]Acts 22
7 I fell to the ground and [b]heard a voice[/b] saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?'
8 I replied, 'Who are you, sir?' And he said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazorean whom you are persecuting.'
9 [b]My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice[/b] of the one who spoke to me.[/quote]
Light: YES
Voice: YES
Witnesses: YES

[quote]Acts 26
13 At midday, along the way, O king, I saw a [b]light from the sky, brighter than the sun,[/b] shining around me and my traveling companions.
14 [b][u]We[/u] all fell to the ground[/b] and [b][u]I[/u] heard a voice saying to [u]me[/u][/b] in Hebrew, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goad.' 3
15 And I said, 'Who are you, sir?' And the Lord replied, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.[/quote]
Light: YES
Voice: YES
Witnesses: YES

In all three accounts there is a light, a voice, and witnesses.

If you want to continue saying that they conflict significantly, don't blame Paul. You wouldn't expect him to recount his conversion verbatim with every telling, would you?

Just as you wouldn't expect your friends to recount their delusions verbatim at every therapy session.

Edited May 28, 2005 by Archangel

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 26 2005, 03:58 AM']
When are you claiming that the final editing (additions etc) of the Didache occurred?   In the secod century perhaps?  Why do you think that the Acts of the Apotles has four descriptions of Baptism, all only in the name of Jesus, not the Trinity?

And when as Acts written?

According to the New American Bible:

"Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke's Gospel (Luke 13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20; 23:28-31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80-90 as the time of composition."

So around 80 - 90 A.D. we still are seeing baptism in the name of Jesus alone. Matthew was probably written earlier and contains one of the only two accounts of the Trinity. The other, in 1 John 5 has now been deleted as being an addition from the sixth century. So Matthew's too seems to be of a later date.

The doctrine of the Trinity dates from the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Eusebius and others maintained records of that council. Curiously, neither Matt 28, nor 1 John was introduced as evidence of the existence of the Trinity. Why do you think that was?[/quote]
Why are you bringing Acts into this? I thought we were talking about Matthew? Oh, introducing a straw man ... -_- Anyway, I already gave an explanation from St. Thomas Aquinas about baptizing in the name of Jesus in Acts.

Council of Nicea? Yet another straw man ... -_- But, it's okay if you want to believe that the Didache was finally edited in the second century. It just proves that the Trinity was believed a few hundred years before the Council.

Getting back to Matthew, we have this from the NAB:

"Therefore: since universal power belongs to the risen Jesus (Matthew 28:18), he gives the eleven a mission that is universal. They are to make disciples of all nations. While all nations is understood by some scholars as referring only to all Gentiles, it is probable that it included the Jews as well. [b]Baptizing them: baptism is the means of entrance into the community of the risen one, the Church. In the name of the Father . . . holy Spirit: this is perhaps the clearest expression in the New Testament of trinitarian belief. It may have been the baptismal formula of Matthew's church, but primarily it designates the effect of baptism, the union of the one baptized with the Father, Son, and holy Spirit.[/b]"

Edited May 28, 2005 by Archangel

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 28 2005, 03:44 AM']
If you want to continue saying that they conflict significantly, don't blame Paul. You wouldn't expect him to recount his conversion verbatim with every telling, would you?

Just as you wouldn't expect your friends to recount their delusions verbatim at every therapy session. [/quote]
If the accounts claim to be "inspired" scripture, I'd expect them to me the same. Unless, of course, God (Who cannot be the author of any error whatsoever), has a very poor memory.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 28 2005, 04:24 AM'] Why are you bringing Acts into this? I thought we were talking about Matthew? Oh, introducing a straw man ... -_- Anyway, I already gave an explanation from St. Thomas Aquinas about baptizing in the name of Jesus in Acts.

[/quote]
I thought it was you who tried to use the Didache as proof. But you used incorrect dating in an effort to prove that the Trinity formula was used in baptism around 70 A.D. Acts, written later, is still describing baptism in the name of Jesus alone.

Actually the Trinity is a product of the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.). If evidence for the existence of the Trinity had existed earlier, wouldn't those arguing for the existence of the Trinity have used that evidence at Nicea to prove their point?

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 28 2005, 12:53 AM'] If the accounts claim to be "inspired" scripture, I'd expect them to me the same. Unless, of course, God (Who cannot be the author of any error whatsoever), has a very poor memory. [/quote]
They are inspired Scripture. You just don't have the faith to believe them.

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 28 2005, 12:59 AM']I thought it was you who tried to use the Didache as proof.  But you used incorrect dating in  an effort to prove that the Trinity formula was used in baptism around 70 A.D. Acts, written later, is still describing baptism in the name of Jesus alone.

Actually the Trinity is a product of the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.).  If evidence for the existence of the Trinity had existed earlier, wouldn't those arguing for the existence of the Trinity have used  that evidence at Nicea to prove their point? [/quote]
I didn't use any incorrect dating about the Didache. It was written in the first and second centuries.

You, however, are incorrect about Acts. Since it was also written by Luke, it was written around A.D. 80.



You need to read up on the Trinity: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm[/url]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 28 2005, 05:01 AM'] They are inspired Scripture. You just don't have the faith to believe them. [/quote]
I'd say that I just don't have the gullibility to believe them. But that's only because of the errors and contradictions they contain.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 28 2005, 05:23 AM'] I didn't use any incorrect dating about the Didache. It was written in the first and second centuries.

You, however, are incorrect about Acts. Since it was also written by Luke, it was written around A.D. 80.



You need to read up on the Trinity: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm[/url]

[/quote]
(1) If the Didache was still being written in the second century, then clearly it cannot be used as proof - as you originally attempted - that the baptismal formula describe by Matthew was used by the very early Church.

(2) Thank you for your assertion that Luke-Acts were written about 80 A.D. Acts has four descriptions of baptism. All are in the name of Jesus alone. None in the name of the Trinity.

QED!

PS And the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia which you are evidently referring me to
is a "party line" text which is about 100 years out of date. Not even the church supports all the claims in it. They once did, but now recognize a number of the errors and have made changes in the teachings.

I'm not a "True Believer." Consequently, I go by historical evidence, not the party line.

Edited May 28, 2005 by LittleLes

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 28 2005, 10:08 AM']PS And the on-line  Catholic Encyclopedia which you are evidently referring me to is a "party line" text which is about 100 years out of date. Not even the church supports all the claims in it. They once did, but now recognize a number of the errors and have made changes in the teachings.[/quote]
Please feel free to let us know the "changes" to the teachings on the Trinity that require corrections to the Catholic Encyclopaedia. I'd love to see them.

If you'd like a more recent text, here you go (complete with imprimatur and nihil obstat):
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinitarian_Baptism.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinitarian_Baptism.asp[/url] (added)

Just out of curiousity: could you summarize why you brought up the Trinity under this thread about St. Paul? What connection were you trying to make?

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 28 2005, 10:08 AM']I'm not a "True Believer."  Consequently, I go by historical evidence, not the party line. [/quote]
LittleLes, the fact that you are towing someone else's party line does not prove your objectivity. Your statement here is just a thinly veiled [i]ad hominem[/i]. At times, your sources are sketchy (i.e. towing an anti-Catholic party line), or you try to misquote or misrepresent the words of a Catholic (e.g. St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Cardinal Newman). We'll keep correcting you when you do this.

Edited May 28, 2005 by Mateo el Feo

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='May 28 2005, 11:16 AM'] Please feel free to let us know the "changes" to the teachings on the Trinity that require corrections to the Catholic Encyclopaedia.  I'd love to see them.



Just out of curiousity: could you summarize why you brought up the Trinity under this thread about St. Paul?  What connection were you trying to make?


[/quote]
I don't think that I analyzed and specified anything about the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the Trinity. I made a general statement that some previous teaching in the Catholic Encyclopedia were in error and have been changed. For this reason, what it claims has to be viewed with caution.


If I recall correctly, Matt 28 came up because I asked Myles if his biblical professor could cite the two manuscripts which omit Matt 28. Somebody else picked up the topic and made it part of the tread. I believe I was very clear stating to Myles that this was an aside prompted by his admission that his professor confirmed that the expresion "Son of God" does not exist in early manuscripts of Mark 1:1. Sorry that we got off the thread. Paul, of course, did not teach the Trinity, and the four reported baptisms in Acts were in Jesus name only.

LittleLes

Edited May 28, 2005 by LittleLes

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 28 2005, 06:07 PM']I don't think that I analyzed and specified anything about the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the Trinity. I made a general statement that some previous teaching in the Catholic Encyclopedia were in error and have been changed. For this reason, what it claims has to be viewed with caution.[/quote]
You made the claim. I had a response. First, if it is not germane to the topic, why bring it up? Second, if you have a claim about the Catholic Encyclopedia having "errors," by all means: list them for everyone to see.

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 28 2005, 06:07 PM']Paul, of course, did not teach the Trinity, and the four reported baptisms in Acts were in Jesus name only.[/quote]
I have to admit, I find this humorous. In the past, I've encountered non-Christians who claim that the Trinity was [u]added[/u] by St. Paul. You guys have to get your theories straight. It's always about dividing the Holy Bible into pieces so we Christians can clearly prove every dogma in the smallest sub-set of the New Testament, chosen by the skeptic. Is this an objective method for discovering truth, or is it an easy way to reinforce disbelief?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='May 29 2005, 12:14 AM'] You made the claim. I had a response. First, if it is not germane to the topic, why bring it up? Second, if you have a claim about the Catholic Encyclopedia having "errors," by all means: list them for everyone to see.


[/quote]
Listing all the errors in the Catholic Encyclopedia would be a lengthy thread in itself.

But I can give you an example. From the catholic Encyclopedia's article on the Ethical Aspects of Slavery:

"The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was permitted under the Mosaic law would have sufficed to prevent the institution form being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral. "

While they admit that it is not, theoretically speaking at least, contrary to the natural law......."


This natural law and scriptural justification of the institution of slavery is now viewed to have been in error.

Veritatis splendor # 80: Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object".[131] The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: ...slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; ..."

See also, the (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2414. Slavery is now a sin against the 7th commandment.

In summary, the old CE claim that slavery can be supported by the natural law ans scripture is now defunct and has changed.

[Aloysius]

or perhaps the Catechism and Veritatis Splender refer to what is modernly known as "slavery"

not what the CE is talking about-- tempered with humane restrictions. the modern equivalent to what the CE is talking about is community service and imprisonment of criminals. The Catechism does not condemn those actions, only slavery, because in the socio-economic situation of the world today slavery can mean only one thing, that thing that it meant for the African slave trade (which was condemned to a deaf audience by the Pope of the time) and for indian slaves et cetera, not what it meant for prisoners of war and criminals in medieval and biblical times.


however, you are not going to pull anyone here into some crazy red herring wild goose chase. stick to the original topic for goodness sakes you're all over the place!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='May 29 2005, 12:14 AM']

I have to admit, I find this humorous. In the past, I've encountered non-Christians who claim that the Trinity was [u]added[/u] by St. Paul. You guys have to get your theories straight. It's always about dividing the Holy Bible into pieces so we Christians can clearly prove every dogma in the smallest sub-set of the New Testament, chosen by the skeptic. Is this an objective method for discovering truth, or is it an easy way to reinforce disbelief? [/quote]
I don't think you will find anything in Paul's writings claiming the existence of a Trinity. If you claim that there is a clear reference to it, perhaps you can cite the letter, chapter, and verse.

The Divinity of Christ and the existence of the Trinity became dogma by majority vote at the council of Nicea, called by and largely under the control of Constantine.

"In 325, Constantine the Great convened the council of Nicea to settle the Arian dispute concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. It was there that the doctrine of the Trinity was declared to be the orthodox Christian belief. Literature on what happened at this council is scant."

But opposing views on the divinity of Christ and the existence of the Trinity continued after the Council of Nicea.

Errors and contradictions should be identified in the bible rather than being used as a justification for some moral norms and a belief system.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 29 2005, 04:15 AM']Listing all the errors in the Catholic Encyclopedia would be a lengthy thread in itself.[/quote]
Start a new thread. Unsubstantiated allegations don't hold water, and they tend to clutter up the thread.

[quote name='Aloysius']or perhaps the Catechism and Veritatis Splender refer to what is modernly known as "slavery"[/quote]
I agree with this. During the 2000 year history of the Catholic faith, the acknowledgment of the dignity of the human person has guided the Church to continuously work for more rights for [u]all[/u] people.

As the practice (and definition) of slavery evolved to what we now understand it (i.e. treating a person as a commodity or "chattel slavery"), papal bulls and encyclicals (over the last 400-500 years) consistently denounced the immorality of the practice of slavery. The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the ethical aspects of slavery are in agreement with the teachings of the Church. I would argue that the term "slavery" used in Veritatis Splendor was short-hand for "chattel slavery," and did not include other things that may have been included under a broader definition of the term slavery (e.g. serfdom, indentured servitude).

With all that said, Aloysius is correct that this discussion is not appropriate for this thread. If you'd like to discuss it further, please start a new thread or do a quick search for previous threads that deal with the topic of slavery and the Church. For more information, here are some links (thanks to PhatCatholic!):
[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=12032"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=12032[/url]

[quote name='LittleLes']The Divinity of Christ and the existence of the Trinity became dogma by majority vote at the council of Nicea, called by and largely under the control of Constantine.

"In 325, Constantine the Great convened the council of Nicea to settle the Arian dispute concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. It was there that the doctrine of the Trinity was declared to be the orthodox Christian belief. Literature on what happened at this council is scant."[/quote]
I'm sensing more "objective sources." LOL!

Hmmm...let's do a [url="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Literature+on+what+happened+at+this+council+is+scant%22&hl=en&lr=&fiddler=0"]Google Search (link)[/url].

OK, so who is guilty of the conspiracy to change Christianity: St. Paul or Constantine? For the sake of sanity, let's limit ourselves to one conspiracy theory at a time!

[quote name='LittleLes']But opposing views on the divinity of Christ and the existence of the Trinity continued after the Council of Nicea.[/quote]
Opposing views continued after the Second Vatican Council, too. And this proves what?

[quote name='LittleLes']I don't think you will find anything in Paul's writings claiming the existence of a Trinity. If you claim that there is a clear reference to it, perhaps you can cite the letter, chapter, and verse.[/quote]
Well, let's begin with a Trinitarian formula that St. Paul uses at the end of the Second Letter to the Corinthians:
[quote name='2 Cor 13:13']The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the holy Spirit be with all of you.[/quote]
Throughout St. Paul's epistles, we see the three persons of the Trinity acting in relation to us. In addition, St. Luke mentions the persons of the Trinity in his gospel account and the Acts of the Apostles, where the Holy Spirit plays a central role in the new Church.

Again, I find it funny that there are so many nuances to this game of proving every doctrine with arbitrary subsets of the Holy Scriptures. This time, it's easy to play.

Edited May 29, 2005 by Mateo el Feo

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 28 2005, 05:02 AM']I'd say that I just don't have the gullibility to believe them. But that's only because of the errors and contradictions they contain. [/quote]
Catholics, on the other hand, have faith to believe them because there are no errors or contradictions.

I found this that disproves the "contradiction" of Paul's conversion accounts:

"[b][u]Some Bible contradictions appear contradictory solely because of the intricacies of Bible translation.[/u] Analysis of the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament) can solve many apparent issues. It's no different than any other textual review of translated material. All languages (including especially Hebrew and Greek) have special limitations and nuances that cause difficulty in translation. The historical context of the translation can also cause some misunderstanding.[/b]

"For instance, the Book of Acts has two accounts of Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus.

In Acts 9:7: "…the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

In Acts 22:9: "…they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me" (King James Version).

"At first glance, these accounts seem contradictory -- one says that Paul's companions heard a voice, while the other says that no voice was heard. However, the Greek text solves the matter.

[b]"[u]The construction of the verb 'to hear' (Greek: akouw, akouo, Strong's Concordance #191 ) is not the same in both accounts[/u]. In Acts 9:7 it is used with the genitive, in Acts 22:9 with the accusative. The construction with the genitive simply expresses that something is being heard or that certain sounds reach the ear; nothing is indicated as to whether a person understands what he hears or not. The construction with the accusative, however, describes a hearing, which includes mental apprehension of the message spoken. [u]From this it becomes evident that the two passages are not contradictory[/u]." (W.F. Arndt, Does the Bible Contradict Itself? , pp. 13,14.) Therefore, Acts 22:9 doesn't deny that Paul's companions heard certain sounds; it simply says that they didn't understand the sounds that they heard. "[/b]

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 28 2005, 05:08 AM'](1) If the Didache was still being written in the second century, then clearly it cannot be used as proof - as you originally attempted - that the baptismal formula describe by Matthew was used by the very early Church.

(2) Thank you for your assertion that Luke-Acts were written about 80 A.D. Acts has four descriptions of baptism. All are in the name of Jesus alone. None in the name of the Trinity.

QED!

PS And the on-line  Catholic Encyclopedia which you are evidently referring me to
is a "party line" text which is about 100 years out of date. Not even the church supports all the claims in it. They once did, but now recognize a number of the errors and have made changes in the teachings.

I'm not a "True Believer."  Consequently, I go by historical evidence, not the party line. [/quote]
(1) The Didache can be used as proof. Why do set a date limit? You also failed to mention that the Didache was started in the first century. It shows that Trinitarian baptism could have been performed as early as the first century and definitely in the second century.

(2) If you actually look at Acts, you will see that they are not references to a baptismal formula, but to the [u]authority of Jesus as the Lord God[/u], and not to John the Baptist or someone else. (This is more evidence of the Divinity of Jesus.)

P.S. Don't go dissing the Catholic Encyclopedia. You have quoted from it yourself in other threads. It's not its faul that it shows how wrong you are.

The historical evidence is there. You just don't want to believe it.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 29 2005, 03:23 AM'] or perhaps the Catechism and Veritatis Splender refer to what is modernly known as "slavery"

not what the CE is talking about-- tempered with humane restrictions.  the modern equivalent to what the CE is talking about is community service and imprisonment of criminals.  The Catechism does not condemn those actions, only slavery, because in the socio-economic situation of the world today slavery can mean only one thing, that thing that it meant for the African slave trade (which was condemned to a deaf audience by the Pope of the time) and for indian slaves et cetera, not what it meant for prisoners of war and criminals in medieval and biblical times.


however, you are not going to pull anyone here into some crazy red herring wild goose chase.  stick to the original topic for goodness sakes you're all over the place! [/quote]
No.I'm refering to the specific teaching in the old on-line Catholic Encyclopedia that the institution of slavery is supported by both scripture and the natural law.

(1) "Late in the 17th century, Nicholas Leander, a Roman Catholic theologian, wrote: “It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery in which a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture...It is also proved from reason for it is not unreasonable that just as things which are captured in a just war pass into the power and ownership of the victors, so persons captured in war pass into the ownership of the captors... All theologians are unanimous on this.”

(2)"As recently as 20 June 1866, the Holy Office declared in a statement signed by Pope Pius IX that “it is not contrary to the natural or divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given, provided in the sale, purchase, exchange or gift, the due conditions are strictly observed which the approved authors describe and explain”. Note that the justification was based both on philosophy (natural law) and on Revelation (divine law). The point here is that the Holy Office, supposedly the guardian of Truth, was defending a practice that was both humanly degrading and theologically wrong"


(3) Lev 25:44
"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves.


The Catholic Encyclopedia supported this traditional Catholic moral justification of slavery. Note: we are talking about " chattel slavery" in which the slave and all his children and their children are the possessions of the slave owner.

" From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was permitted under the Mosaic law would have sufficed to prevent the institution form being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral.


But this teaching is in error. Slavery is recognized as intrinsically evil and never can be justified (op cit. Veritatis splendor). Compare the wording of the Catholic Catechism and the Holy Office pronouncement of 1866 (above). Note that they are complete opposities because the older Catholic teaching, still maintined by the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia, is now recognized as to have been in error.


(4)(New) Catholic Catechism #2414" The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity."

Some apologists engage in "lets pretend" by trying to redefine chattel slavery as described in the governing passage in Leviticus. But chattel slavery is being spoken in which all offspring are also enslaved. It is not imprisonment, endentured servitude, or any slavery like institution.

Edited May 30, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 28 2005, 03:44 AM'] The accounts do not "conflict" nor do they differ "significantly". You are just trying to introduce a straw man to divert attention away from the topic at hand: the conversion of Paul from a divine encounter with Jesus.

Since you go with Paul hearing a voice, then you are going with the accounts in Acts and not Galations because, as you said, there is no reference to Paul hearing a voice in his account in Galations.

With that, let us look at the accounts in Acts:


Light: YES
Voice: YES
Witnesses: YES


Light: YES
Voice: YES
Witnesses: YES


Light: YES
Voice: YES
Witnesses: YES

In all three accounts there is a light, a voice, and witnesses. 

If you want to continue saying that they conflict significantly, don't blame Paul. You wouldn't expect him to recount his conversion verbatim with every telling, would you?

Just as you wouldn't expect your friends to recount their delusions verbatim at every therapy session.  [/quote]


The three accounts of Paul's Damascus experience found in Acts of the Apostles are contradictory. And keep in mind, this is suppose to be writings inspired by God and concequently free from all error (well at least according to Providentissimus deus).

Please reread Galatians 1: 11-12 " 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"

Paul is stating that he did not learn his views of Jesus Christ from "human origin." This would mean that he did not learn from the Jesus" apostles or disciples. And Paul never met Jesus.

He claims that he received it "through a revelation of Jesus Christ." That's a vision or locution (or hallucination).

My charismatic friend down the street has those all the time. Is there any reason I should believe he is any less creditable than Paul?

Edited May 30, 2005 by LittleLes