Who was Paul?

[Mateo el Feo]

LittleLes,

You're all over the place. The topic is "Who is Paul?" If you want to discuss another topic, make a new thread. It's easy.

[Noel's angel]

sometimes i want to answer some of the questions that LittleLes puts forawrd but then I think 'hey, why bother? My words will be twisted and misinterpreted,' so I just don't bother....yes, i may be getting lazy, but sometimes it is really pointless

[Cam42]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='May 30 2005, 10:36 AM'] LittleLes,

You're all over the place. The topic is "Who is Paul?" If you want to discuss another topic, make a new thread. It's easy. [/quote]
Does that really suprise you? Why do you think that we stop engaging him? He doesn't have on coherent thought.

Incidentally, St. Paul was a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised previously through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh, but established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 1:1-4)

I would love to see LittleLes deny that one.

Cam

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 30 2005, 11:45 AM']Incidentally, St. Paul was a slave of Christ Jesus...[/quote]
I wonder if LittleLes would consider this a sin against the 7th Commandment, according to his interpretation of the Catechism.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='May 30 2005, 10:39 AM'] sometimes i want to answer some of the questions that LittleLes puts forawrd but then I think 'hey, why bother? My words will be twisted and misinterpreted,' so I just don't bother....yes, i may be getting lazy, but sometimes it is really pointless [/quote]
On the other hand, maybe you realize your answer will be in error.

[Noel's angel]

Nope

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='May 30 2005, 12:34 PM'] I wonder if LittleLes would consider this a sin against the 7th Commandment, according to his interpretation of the Catechism.  [/quote]

Paul is speaking figuratively here. But if he realized that making himself an actual slave was a sin against the 7th commandment, then he would have so sinned.

Paul supported the moral legitimacy of slavery based on its claimed biblical approval by God, as did the Catholic Church until relatively recently.

Paul also supported the natural, rather than virginal, birth of Jesus.

Edited May 30, 2005 by LittleLes

[Aloysius]

so... where does Paul say it was a natural birth? there's no evidence of that, pure conjecture and speculation.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 30 2005, 03:18 PM']
Paul is speaking figuratively here. But if he realized that making himself an actual slave was a sin against the 7th commandment, then he would have so sinned.

Paul supported the moral legitimacy of slavery based on its claimed biblical approval by God, as did the Catholic Church until relatively recently.

Paul also supported the natural, rather than virginal, birth of Jesus. [/quote]
So now he's speaking figuratively.....can't have it both ways....

Is he a slave or is he lying?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 30 2005, 03:20 PM'] so... where does Paul say it was a natural birth? there's no evidence of that, pure conjecture and speculation. [/quote]
(1) Romans 1:3: "...the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh,..."

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

Summary:

(1) According to the flesh ie. a natural birth.
(2) Born of a woman , not a virgin.( Paul never claims a virgin birth for Jesus)
(3) Born under the law, ie, a legitimate birth. Married parents, their offspring.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 30 2005, 03:28 PM'] (1) Romans 1:3: "...the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh,..."

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

Summary:

(1) According to the flesh ie. a natural birth.
(2) Born of a woman , not a virgin.( Paul never claims a virgin birth for Jesus)
(3) Born under the law, ie, a legitimate birth. Married parents, their offspring. [/quote]
Oh wow! These passages really shatter my faith in the virgin birth!

(1) Here's a big surprise for you, Littleles - We "True Believing" Catholics beleive Mary was really Jesus' actual mother! In fact, (shocker here!) we greatly honor Mary as the Mother of God! So Jesus was actually conceived and born from the flesh of His Mother. What new surprises do you have in store?

(2) Mary was a woman??? Geez, Littleles, I was not aware of that!

(3) Mary and Joseph were lawfully wed. And clearly "under the law" hear refers to the Jewish Law ("to ransom those under the law.")

This is about the weakest attempt at "refutation" I have seen anywhere, even from Littleles!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 30 2005, 03:40 PM']

Here's a big surprise for you, Littleles - We "True Believing" Catholics beleive Mary was really Jesus' actual mother! [/quote]
I agree. And Joseph was his actual father. That's how one gets born "according to the flesh."

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 31 2005, 09:20 AM'] I agree. And Joseph was his actual father. That's how one gets born "according to the flesh." [/quote]
Maybe you don't know biology. Birth and conception are different events.

The problem is: your particular conspiracy theory ("Jesus is not God" or Arianism) isn't the only one that the Catholic Church has to deal with. We also have had people (e.g. Gnostics) who believe that "Jesus is not true man."

The fact that Holy Scriptures show that Our Lord is truly human (e.g. by eating, by "being born according to the flesh") is valuable to counter those who hold conspiracy theories that are opposite to your own.

It's important to understand that Holy Scriptures were not written to exclusively focus on one group's heretical beliefs.

[uriel]

Seems to me you're trying to point out that because Jesus wasn't concieved through Joseph, the claim that he would be of the lineage of David falls through. I asked my pastor about this before, and he said that in the greek it says that Joseph named the child Jesus, which was the writers way of indicating that Joseph had "adopted" Jesus.

This would seem to "play into the hands" of your argument (or at least that which I think to be your argument), but I think that Romans 1:3 is up for interpretation, and another version of that verse (from bible.com) is:
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; "

Not sure where that leaves the argument, but I felt like posting.

LittleLes I must say I have tremendous respect for your patience and intellect. Thanks for having this discussion. It seems to me it is a geneuinely truth driven discussion. By forcing people to defend thier faith, they're able to reevaluate it, and it becomes stronger. My apologies for all those who post offensively, and are obviously not trying to have a decent debate. You da man.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='uriel' date='Jun 1 2005, 01:24 AM']Seems to me you're trying to point out that because Jesus wasn't concieved through Joseph, the claim that he would be of the lineage of David falls through. I asked my pastor about this before, and he said that in the greek it says that Joseph named the child Jesus, which was the writers way of indicating that Joseph had "adopted" Jesus.

This would seem to "play into the hands" of your argument (or at least that which I think to be your argument), but I think that Romans 1:3 is up for interpretation, and another version of that verse (from bible.com) is:
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; "

Not sure where that leaves the argument, but I felt like posting. [/quote]
Just FYI, St. Thomas Aquinas dealt with this question in the Summa Theologica:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/403102.htm"]Whether Christ took flesh of the seed of David? (link)[/url]

His answer cites both St. Augustine and St. Jerome, who answered this question ~1600 years ago.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='uriel' date='Jun 1 2005, 12:24 AM'] Seems to me you're trying to point out that because Jesus wasn't concieved through Joseph, the claim that he would be of the lineage of David falls through. I asked my pastor about this before, and he said that in the greek it says that Joseph named the child Jesus, which was the writers way of indicating that Joseph had "adopted" Jesus.

This would seem to "play into the hands" of your argument (or at least that which I think to be your argument), but I think that Romans 1:3 is up for interpretation, and another version of that verse (from bible.com) is:
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; "

Not sure where that leaves the argument, but I felt like posting.

LittleLes I must say I have tremendous respect for your patience and intellect. Thanks for having this discussion. It seems to me it is a geneuinely truth driven discussion. By forcing people to defend thier faith, they're able to reevaluate it, and it becomes stronger. My apologies for all those who post offensively, and are obviously not trying to have a decent debate. You da man. [/quote]
Thanks, Uriel,

I'm afraid the "adopted" Jesus argument is without merit. Certainly someone could be adopted and even inherit property on that account. But the Hebrew requirement to "be of the seed of" or to be "from the loins of" demands actual biological fatherhood.

LittleLes

Edited June 1, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 1 2005, 12:42 AM'] Just FYI, St. Thomas Aquinas dealt with this question in the Summa Theologica:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/403102.htm"]Whether Christ took flesh of the seed of David? (link)[/url]

His answer cites both St. Augustine and St. Jerome, who answered this question ~1600 years ago. [/quote]
"So therefore we believe that Mary was also of the family of David: because we believe the Scriptures, which assert both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that Mary was His Mother, not by sexual intercourse but retaining her virginity." For as Jerome says on Mt. 1:18: "Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe: wherefore he was bound by law to marry her as she was his kinswoman."

This argument is flawed in two ways.

(1) First of all, generation proceeded solely through the male who carried the entire offspring in his "seed." Never the female. The role of the woman was to be "fertile" to provide nourishment for the "seed" so it could grow. (Barren was the inability to do so). For this reason, there were no Hebrew female geneologies. They were thought to be meaningless.

(2) Luke 1:5 "In the days of Herod, King of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah; his wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth." (ie. Both were Levites)

And,

Luke 1:36 "And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived "

Actually "relative" is an imprecise translation. The older term was "kinswoman," still maintained in some translations. Kin were blood relatives. So the clear preponderence of the evidence is that Mary was also a "daughter or Aaron," ie a Levite, and non-Davidic. But if one were going to claim a virgin birth for Jesus, one had to believe Mary was Davidic to argue (incorrectly since generation was always throught the male's seed) that Mary was Davidic so the prophecies could be fulfilled.

Edited June 1, 2005 by LittleLes

[Brother Adam]

Are you a Mormon?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 1 2005, 08:18 AM'] "So therefore we believe that Mary was also of the family of David: because we believe the Scriptures, which assert both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that Mary was His Mother, not by sexual intercourse but retaining her virginity." For as Jerome says on Mt. 1:18: "Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe: wherefore he was bound by law to marry her as she was his kinswoman."

This argument is flawed in two ways.

(1) First of all, generation proceeded solely through the male who carried the entire offspring in his "seed." Never the female. The role of the woman was to be "fertile" to provide nourishment for the "seed" so it could grow. (Barren was the inability to do so). For this reason, there were no Hebrew female geneologies. They were thought to be meaningless.

(2) Luke 1:5 "In the days of Herod, King of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah; his wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth." (ie. Both were Levites)

And,

Luke 1:36 "And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived "

Actually "relative" is an imprecise translation. The older term was "kinswoman," still maintained in some translations. Kin were blood relatives. So the clear preponderence of the evidence is that Mary was also a "daughter or Aaron," ie a Levite, and non-Davidic. But if one were going to claim a virgin birth for Jesus, one had to believe Mary was Davidic to argue (incorrectly since generation was always throught the male's seed) that Mary was Davidic so the prophecies could be fulfilled. [/quote]
Objection #2 of the link I provided deals with your theory. The same argument was made by Faustus, the Manichean, and answered by St. Augustine around 1600 years ago.

Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/403102.htm"]Whether Christ took flesh of the seed of David?[/url]):
[quote]Objection 2. Further, Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, as related Ex. 6. Now Mary the Mother of Christ is called the cousin of Elizabeth, who was a daughter of Aaron, as is clear from Lk. 1:5,36. Therefore, since David was of the tribe of Juda, as is shown Mt. 1, it seems that Christ was not descended from David.

Answer:

Reply to Objection 2. Gregory of Nazianzum answers this objection by saying that it happened by God's will, that the royal family was united to the priestly race, so that Christ, who is both king and priest, should be born of both according to the flesh. Wherefore Aaron, who was the first priest according to the Law, married a wife of the tribe of Juda, Elizabeth, daughter of Aminadab. It is therefore possible that Elizabeth's father married a wife of the family of David, through whom the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was of the family of David, would be a cousin of Elizabeth. or conversely, and with greater likelihood, that the Blessed Mary's father, who was of the family of David, married a wife of the family of Aaron.

Again, it may be said with Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii) that if Joachim, Mary's father, was of the family of Aaron (as the heretic Faustus pretended to prove from certain apocryphal writings), then we must believe that Joachim's mother, or else his wife, was of the family of David, so long as we say that Mary was in some way descended from David.[/quote]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 1 2005, 07:34 AM'] Are you a Mormon? [/quote]
No, Catholic.