Who was Paul?

[LittleLes]

Lets examine the flaw in this "it is possible" argument.

"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"



Again, the basic flaw. The seed (which alone contains the offspring) comes only from the man, never the woman. Hence, if Elizabeth's father is a Levite (Descended from Aaron), Elizabeth is also. It makes no differece who her mother's forebearer was. The "seed" determines lineage in Hebrew teaching. At best you might explain the claim of "cousin" this way, but not Jesus' birth from the "seed of David."

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 2 2005, 03:20 AM']Again, the basic flaw. The seed (which alone contains the offspring) comes only from the man, never the woman. Hence, if Elizabeth's father is a Levite (Descended from Aaron), Elizabeth is also. It makes no differece who her mother's forebearer was. The "seed" determines lineage in Hebrew teaching. At best you might explain the claim of "cousin" this way, but not Jesus' birth from the "seed of David."[/quote]
You wrote something in another thread that I think is worth mentioning:
[quote name='LittleLes']And constantly repeating the same error does not make it any less of an error.[/quote]
You keep focusing on the theory that a "seed" can't pass through a woman. Reviewing the Early Church Fathers, a variety of voices disagree with you: St. Irenaeus of Lyons and St. Augustine come to mind.

You seem to believe that you know the usage of the term "seed" in the context of ancient Jewish Culture (2000 years ago) better than these Church Fathers who lived (in the case of St. Irenaeus) only a century after Our Lord. So, would your conspiracy theory be that these men attempted to change the meaning of "seed" to fit the New Testament account?

You suggest the following:
[quote]The seed (which alone contains the offspring) comes only from the man, never the woman.[/quote]

So I looked at the Old Testament to test your theory. I stumbled across a verse in Genesis:
[quote name='Genesis 3:15']I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her [b]seed[/b]: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.[/quote]

Going back to the Latin:
[quote name='Genesis 3:15'][i]inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et [b]semen[/b] illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius[/i][/quote]

Now, looking at St. Pauls Letter to the Romans ("...the seed of David, according to the flesh..."):
[quote name='Romans 1:3'][i]de Filio suo qui factus est ex [b]semine[/b] David secundum carnem[/i][/quote]
The same Latin word appears in both verses. Genesis describes a woman who "has a seed" all the way back to Genesis. She has offspring, and it [u]does[/u] make a difference that she is the mother!

My prediction is that your next conspiracy theory will be that St. Jerome is to blame for a bad Latin translation!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 2 2005, 03:39 AM'] You wrote something in another thread that I think is worth mentioning:


So I looked at the Old Testament to test your theory.  I stumbled across a verse in Genesis:


Going back to the Latin:

The same Latin word appears in both verses.  Genesis describes a woman who "has a seed" all the way back to Genesis.  She has offspring, and it [u]does[/u] make a difference that she is the mother!

My prediction is that your next conspiracy theory will be that St. Jerome is to blame for a bad Latin translation! [/quote]


Have you ever encountered words with more than one definition?

And first of all, it you are going to deal with definitions from scripture, don't use a Latin translation. THese were made much later and are frequently of poor quality as even admitted by Jerome.

Use an original translation from the Hebrew (for the old testament) or Greek for the New Testamant. THis was done in the New American Bible (Catholic) and New Revised Standard Version (Protestant).

The word you are looking for is "seed." It usually means the immeidate offspring, but it call mean all future offspring, eg " of the seed of David."

A more correct translation of Genesis 3:15 may be found in the New American Bible:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers."

This is an allegory in which the serpant is Satan (or the spirit of evil) and the woman represents Israel.

Please note that women, not having testes, do not produce seed (Gr. Sperma).

Edited June 3, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]My prediction is that your next conspiracy theory will be that St. Jerome is to blame for a bad Latin translation![/quote]

Is iam exertus ut unus. quod deficio misericorditer. ut usitas.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 3 2005, 10:16 AM']Have you ever encountered words with more than one definition?[/quote]
St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Irenaeus, Gregory of Nazianzum, and a whole host of others have encountered words with more than one definition. But they didn't know that LittleLes only accepts one definition. A reminder: I'm not the one defending a strict literalism in this particular argument.

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 3 2005, 10:16 AM']The word you are looking for is "seed." It usually means the immeidate offspring, but it call mean all future offspring, eg " of the seed of David."[/quote]
If I'm understanding your statement, you are saying that the word "seed" can mean "all future offspring. Well, that would be what I originally said. This view is contradicted by your previous post:
[quote name='LittleLes']Again, the basic flaw. The seed (which alone contains the offspring) comes only from the man, never the woman.[/quote]
The problem, LittleLes, is that your theory demands that we impose strict literalism on some parts of the Holy Bible (e.g. Romans) and allow a more flexible meaning on other parts (e.g. Genesis). And, [u]you[/u] are the arbiter for when we must be literalists and when we are not.

Do you see how it's a little hard to believe that such a argument qualifies as an unbiased search for truth? It seems as if you are forming your argument based on an objective of getting to a desired answer (i.e. the Catholic Church and Holy Scriptures are wrong).

But, please, let me know how I am wrong and why your argument could be described as an unbiased search for truth.

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 3 2005, 10:16 AM']And first of all, it you are going to deal with definitions from scripture, don't use a Latin translation. THese were made much later and are frequently of poor quality as even admitted by Jerome.[/quote]
At least I predicted your next conspiracy theory.

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 3 2005, 10:16 AM']Please note that women, not having testes, do not produce seed (Gr. Sperma).[/quote]
Thanks for the biology lesson.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 3 2005, 10:16 AM']Use an original translation from the  Hebrew (for the old testament) or Greek for the New Testamant. THis was done in the New American Bible (Catholic) and New Revised Standard Version (Protestant).

The word you are looking for is "seed."  It usually means the immeidate offspring, but it call mean all future offspring, eg " of the seed of David."

Please note that women, not having testes, do not produce seed (Gr. Sperma). [/quote]
Just for fun, I went to Biola's online [url="http://unbound.biola.edu"]Holy Bible search tool (link)[/url] in the hope of hammering one more nail into the coffin ()of the argument against Jesus being the seed of David through Mary.

In Gen 3:15, both the Greek Septuagint and Hebrew use a term that can be translated to seed, semen, offspring, etc.

Greek Septuagint (LXX):
[quote name='Gen 3:15']και εχθραν θησω ανα μεσον σου και ανα μεσον της γυναικος και ανα μεσον του σπερματος σου και ανα μεσον του [b]σπερματος [/b]αυτης αυτος σου τηρησει κεφαλην και συ τηρησεις αυτου πτερναν[/quote]
[b]σπερματος[/b] (transliteration: spermatos) = sperm, semen, seed, offspring.

Of course, the same word (σπερματος) shows up in Romans 1:3.

The ancient Hebrew text uses the following word:

[b]זרעה [/b](transliteration: zarah) = semen, seed, offspring

Can't blame St. Jerome for the Septuagint or the Hebrew!

So, LittleLes, are you ready to embrace rule #10?
[quote name='LittleLes'](10) Remain open to correcting ones views if they are proven to be in error.[/quote]

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 30 2005, 01:14 AM']

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? [/quote]
The accounts do not contradict each other. You need to re-read what I posted about the Greek versus English translation.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 3 2005, 09:24 AM']Is iam exertus ut unus. quod deficio misericorditer. ut usitas.
[right][snapback]606400[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

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.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 3 2005, 10:33 AM']St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Irenaeus, Gregory of Nazianzum, and a whole host of others have encountered words with more than one definition.  But they didn't know that LittleLes only accepts one definition.  A reminder: I'm not the one defending a strict literalism in this particular argument.
If I'm understanding your statement, you are saying that the word "seed" can mean "all future offspring.  Well, that would be what I originally said.  This view is contradicted by your previous post:

At least I predicted your next conspiracy theory.
Thanks for the biology lesson. 
[right][snapback]606430[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


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.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 3 2005, 10:40 PM']Just for fun, I went to Biola's online [url="http://unbound.biola.edu"]Holy Bible search tool (link)[/url] in the hope of hammering one more nail into the coffin ()of the argument against Jesus being the seed of David through Mary.

In Gen 3:15, both the Greek Septuagint and Hebrew use a term that can be translated to seed, semen, offspring, etc.

Greek Septuagint (LXX):


[right][snapback]607078[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There are four accounts of Paul's "conversion." Three are given in Acts and one in Galatians. They differ significantly in detail, the Galatian account not even involving a fall from a horse!

Trying to pretend oherwise is contrary to the plain meaning of words.

[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."