Who was Paul?

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 20 2005, 06:21 AM']
I prefer the facts of history over Theology 101.

And in unilaterally appointing my bishop, not the original method of selecting bishops, no, the Pope doesn't necessarily speak for me.

And as Cardinal John Newman pointed out:

"One would expect, Newman adds, to find greater corruption in the Catholic Church than in the Protestant Church, for "a Protestant world cannot commit that sin which a Catholic world can." When ordinary human weaknesses are "coupled with that intense absolute faith which Catholics have, and Protestants have not," one finds "acts of inconsistency, of superstition, violence etc. which are not to be looked for external to the Catholic Church. In other words, on the old principle that the corruption of the best is the worst, if the claims of the Catholic Church are anything to go by, one would expect to find in it the greatest scandals. In particular, in regard to the papacy, "where you have power, you will have the abuse of power — and the more absolute, the stronger, the more sacred the power, the greater and more certain will be its abuse." Because, too, the Church is a visible polity, it is also "necessarily a political power, and to touch politics is to touch pitch."

"Coupled with that intense absolute faith which Catholic have," and "acts of inconsistency, of superstition, violence," Did you study Newman in that "formal theology" course?

I've been working on my keyboarding which, as you noted is not good. And I even learned how to "copy and paste." So I can turn out lengthy apologetic tracts without even reading the material. So now I'm well qualified to enroll in Theology 101! [/quote]
Don't misrepresent Cardinal Newman. He was a "true believer" you know.

[quote]"One would expect, Newman adds, to find greater corruption in the Catholic Church than in the Protestant Church, for "a Protestant world cannot commit that sin which a Catholic world can." When ordinary human weaknesses are "coupled with that intense absolute faith which Catholics have, and Protestants have not," one finds "acts of inconsistency, of superstition, violence etc. which are not to be looked for external to the Catholic Church. In other words, on the old principle that the corruption of the best is the worst, if the claims of the Catholic Church are anything to go by, one would expect to find in it the greatest scandals. In particular, in regard to the papacy, "where you have power, you will have the abuse of power — and the more absolute, the stronger, the more sacred the power, the greater and more certain will be its abuse." Because, too, the Church is a visible polity, it is also "necessarily a political power, and to touch politics is to touch pitch."[/quote]

That is right, there is more corruption, but it isn't the corruption that you are speaking about. Card. Newman was never contrary to dogma. He made a move to the Catholic. If you were to go on with the quote and read it in context you'd know that.

This quote is part of a bigger dissertation in which he defends the Catholic Church. Card. Newman is one of the most "true" of "true believers."

Try finishing the quote and you won't be singing dixie for too long. He doesn't support you.

[url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/index.html"]John Henry Cardinal Newman[/url] and his works. Good luck....Newman doesn't support your position at all.

Cam

[Cam42]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='May 20 2005, 06:59 AM'] This is a rather unfair statement and not a particularly charitable one I might add.  I've known far more intelligent people who couldn't spell, or more reasonably, couldn't type.

I expect more than this level of rebuttal from everyone here on the debate phorum. [/quote]
From Littleles;

[quote]I've been working on my keyboarding which, as you noted is not good. And I even learned how to "copy and paste." So I can turn out lengthy apologetic tracts without even reading the material. So now I'm well qualified to enroll in Theology 101! [/quote]


Consistency. Kilroy. That is a direct ad hominem attack on my person....as I do actually have degrees.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 20 2005, 07:45 AM'] From Littleles;




Riiiiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhhhttttttttttt

Consistency. [/quote]
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.

Edited May 20, 2005 by Kilroy the Ninja

[Cam42]

[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]
That isn't how it reads.....

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 20 2005, 07:41 AM'] Don't misrepresent Cardinal Newman. He was a "true believer" you know.



That is right, there is more corruption, but it isn't the corruption that you are speaking about. Card. Newman was never contrary to dogma. He made a move to the Catholic. If you were to go on with the quote and read it in context you'd know that.

This quote is part of a bigger dissertation in which he defends the Catholic Church. Card. Newman is one of the most "true" of "true believers."

Try finishing the quote and you won't be singing dixie for too long. He doesn't support you.

[url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/index.html"]John Henry Cardinal Newman[/url] and his works. Good luck....Newman doesn't support your position at all.

Cam [/quote]
Apparently the point of Newman's writing, the type of Catholic he was describing, went right by you.

[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?