Who was Paul?

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 11 2005, 11:39 AM']Proven that I am wrong? Really? Lets compare the Douay Rheims, the English translation of the Vulgate, and the New American Bible on these two pasages.

1 Cor 9: 5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (Douay Rheims).

or

1 Cor 9:5  Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas? (NAB)

To push celebacy a "woman" or a "sister" was tolerable, but not a "wife."

Tobias 8: 4 Then Tobias exhorted the virgin, and said to her: Sara, arise, and let us pray to God today, and tomorrow, and the next day: because for these three nights we are joined to God: and when the third night is over, we will be in our own wedlock. (Douay Rheims).

or

Tobias 8:4-6  When the girl's parents left the bedroom and closed the door behind them, Tobiah arose from bed and said to his wife, "My love, get up. Let us pray and beg our Lord to have mercy on us and to grant us deliverance." She got up, and they started to pray and beg that deliverance might be theirs. He began with these words: "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers; praised be your name forever and ever. Let the heavens and all your creation praise you forever. You made Adam and you gave him his wife Eve to be his help and support; and from these two the human race descended. You said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a partner like himself.'  (NAB)

And so Tobias got to consumate his marriage on the first night because "It is not God for man to be alone."

Jerome omitted all of that an had Tobias and Sarah pray for three nights before consumating their marriage so he could deemphasize its sexual aspect.

Sufficient proof, CAM?

QED!
[right][snapback]609246[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


More of the old standby....already discussed....how about something new? I am not interested in proving you wrong again.

QED (quod erat demonstrandum) Do you even know what that means?

operor non alieno , narro lingua volubiliter.

[Aloysius]

the quoteunquote "earliest" texts available still are not the originals. we don't have the originals.

guess what? at the time of St. Jerome, the originals were probably still available. Along with texts that date a lot earlier than any we could now find.

I trust St. Jerome's translation.

but that's beside the point. only if you believe there is divine inspiration and divine guidance to the Church can you really trust any translation. going to the earliest available translations... those are already 2nd/3rd/4th century... there's no reason to trust those either. There is nothing that proves that every single text wasn't written in the 1st century, and since that is the traditional understanding dating back to a time when they could have figured that out, I trust it. so if they were all written in the 1st century and now we're using the earliest texts (which have tons of variations) why do you trust them?

see, as for me, I believe in the Church's Divine Guidance. It's the only way to trust anything in the Bible.. otherwise we might as well throw it out the window as some currupted book. So when the Council of Trent declared the Vulgate to be completely free of all doctrinal error, I believe it. The Vulgate is divinely inspired. Any incorrect deviations or translations St. Jerome may have made (it is unprovable because we no longer have those manuscripts which St. Jerome translated FROM)... God used for good.

I'm sorry, but you cannot know the original texts of the Bible. They're all lost. Either you trust that Divine guidance carried through into the Church, or you don't. If you can't trust the Church, you can't trust the Bible. And obviously vise versa.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 11 2005, 11:59 AM']More of the old standby....already discussed....how about something new?  I am not interested in proving you wrong again.

QED (quod erat demonstrandum) Do you even know what that means?

operor non alieno ,  narro lingua volubiliter.
[right][snapback]609255[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm sorry that your belief system doesn't allow you to recognize even fully documented errors.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 11 2005, 12:04 PM']the quoteunquote "earliest" texts available still are not the originals.  we don't have the originals.

guess what?  at the time of St. Jerome, the originals were probably still available.  Along with texts that date a lot earlier than any we could now find.

I trust St. Jerome's translation.

but that's beside the point.  only if you believe there is divine inspiration and divine guidance to the Church can you really trust any translation.  going to the earliest available translations... those are already 2nd/3rd/4th century... there's no reason to trust those either.  There is nothing that proves that every single text wasn't written in the 1st century, and since that is the traditional understanding dating back to a time when they could have figured that out, I trust it.  so if they were all written in the 1st century and now we're using the earliest texts (which have tons of variations) why do you trust them?

see, as for me, I believe in the Church's Divine Guidance.  It's the only way to trust anything in the Bible.. otherwise we might as well throw it out the window as some currupted book.  So when the Council of Trent declared the Vulgate to be completely free of all doctrinal error, I believe it.  The Vulgate is divinely inspired.  Any incorrect deviations or translations St. Jerome may have made (it is unprovable because we no longer have those manuscripts which St. Jerome translated FROM)... God used for good.

I'm sorry, but you cannot know the original texts of the Bible.  They're all lost.  Either you trust that Divine guidance carried through into the Church, or you don't.  If you can't trust the Church, you can't trust the Bible.  And obviously vise versa.
[right][snapback]609261[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Belief lies in the will and has nothing to do with the establishment of fact. Sorry that you can't accept the evidence. But the American bishops ,with the approval of the Vatican, and the World Council of Churches have accepted the evidence and removed Jerome's interpolations of these passages.

Incidently. Tobias wasn't written in the first century.

Perhaps your statement that "I believe in the Church's Divine Guidance.It's the only way to trust anything in the Bible" indicates that you are about to gain insight! Insight come slowly, but then it comes all at once!

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 11 2005, 06:51 PM']I'm sorry that your belief system doesn't allow you to recognize even  fully documented errors.
[right][snapback]609432[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Is the "I'm sorry....blah, blah, blah"....the new standard for you?

You didn't even attempt to answer the question. Laughable, as always.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 11 2005, 07:32 PM']Is the "I'm sorry....blah, blah, blah"....the new standard for you?

You didn't even attempt to answer the question.  Laughable, as always.
[right][snapback]609454[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


It is not possible to answer a question that has not yet been asked.

[Cam42]

I asked you if you knew what QED (quod erat demonstrandum) means.

I also asked if you had something new. We all have proven you wrong on the things that you resort to, when you are defeated. You will then move on to something else, only to return to the older topic, hoping that we will have forgotten. We will not forget. At least I won't.

You talk about me rambling.....no sir, I don't ramble. I don't introduce many topics in order to confuse the subject. That is your charism...and a bad one at that.

Try staying on point for one whole thread. It is a neat concept. Unless you like being a troll.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 12 2005, 08:36 AM']I asked you if you knew what QED (quod erat demonstrandum) means.

I also asked if you had something new.  We all have proven you wrong on the things that you resort to, when you are defeated.  You will then move on to something else, only to return to the older topic, hoping that we will have forgotten.  We will not forget.  At least I won't. 

You talk about me rambling.....no sir, I don't ramble.  I don't introduce many topics in order to confuse the subject.  That is your charism...and a bad one at that.

Try staying on point for one whole thread.  It is a neat concept.  Unless you like being a troll.
[right][snapback]609626[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

QED (quod erat demonstrandum) is translated as "Which was demonstrated." One learns that as part of high school geometry.

You've proven nothing wrong with what I have written. Readers recognize that you merely claim to have. And they recognize the difference. []

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 12 2005, 09:21 AM']QED (quod erat demonstrandum) is translated as "Which was demonstrated." One learns that as part of high school geometry.

You've proven nothing wrong with what I have written. Readers recognize that you merely claim to have. And they recognize the difference. []
[right][snapback]609632[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Good for you....you know one phrase.....however, you actually have to demostrate something when using that term in theology/philosophy, otherwise you will look the fool.

As far as who recognizes what.....[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=33001"]The proof[/url] is in the pudding....your pudding needs milk, not water. (Substance, son, substance)

[Aloysius]

see the poll.... it appears only one person has voted that you're winning... hmm.. could that be... YOU?

I was merely saying that there is no way to be certain about the original texts. the Church in an infallible council approved the Vulgate as free from any error, so regardless of whether it's close to the 'original text' (which we do not have) it still is the Scriptures to me.

but that's beside the point... you don't believe the Bible. that follows logically, because you don't believe the Church.

This is absolutely insane. St. Paul never made any comment on whether Jesus was born virginally or not... there were orthodox jews who followed the teachings of Christ and were called the nazarenes who, over the first couple centuries, changed and changed into a heretical sect (they were not originally), hmm... and the moon is 250,000 miles from the earth so the tower of Babel would have had to be 250,000 miles tall to reach the heavens (that has about as much to do with the last thing as each thing you've brought up so far!)

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 12 2005, 09:35 AM'] see the poll.... it appears only one person has voted that you're winning... hmm.. could that be... YOU?

I was merely saying that there is no way to be certain about the original texts.  the Church in an infallible council approved the Vulgate as free from any error, so regardless of whether it's close to the 'original text' (which we do not have) it still is the Scriptures to me.

but that's beside the point... you don't believe the Bible.  that follows logically, because you don't believe the Church. 

This is absolutely insane.  St. Paul never made any comment on whether Jesus was born virginally or not... there were orthodox jews who followed the teachings of Christ and were called the nazarenes who, over the first couple centuries, changed and changed into a heretical sect (they were not originally), hmm... and the moon is 250,000 miles from the earth so the tower of Babel would have had to be 250,000 miles tall to reach the heavens (that has about as much to do with the last thing as each thing you've brought up so far!)
[right][snapback]609639[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

He claims that it is not him and that he was slighted insofar as he could not vote.....surmise what you will......

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 12 2005, 09:35 AM'] see the poll.... it appears only one person has voted that you're winning... hmm.. could that be... YOU?

I was merely saying that there is no way to be certain about the original texts.  the Church in an infallible council approved the Vulgate as free from any error, so regardless of whether it's close to the 'original text' (which we do not have) it still is the Scriptures to me.

but that's beside the point... you don't believe the Bible.  that follows logically, because you don't believe the Church. 

This is absolutely insane.  St. Paul never made any comment on whether Jesus was born virginally or not... there were orthodox jews who followed the teachings of Christ and were called the nazarenes who, over the first couple centuries, changed and changed into a heretical sect (they were not originally), hmm... and the moon is 250,000 miles from the earth so the tower of Babel would have had to be 250,000 miles tall to reach the heavens (that has about as much to do with the last thing as each thing you've brought up so far!)
[right][snapback]609639[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

(1) No. I didn't vote. Political elections and Catholic dogma are established by vote (see ecumenical councils). But these are not always based on evidence. Only prejudgments.

(2) Yes. The Church was infallibly wrong about the Vulgate as the Tobias translation and 1 Corinthians illustrate. It was also infallibly wrong in teaching the moral legitimacy of chattel slavery based on its interpretation of the Bible (and natural law), a teaching since reversed.

(3) Yes indeed. The Bible says the church and the church says the bible. That's called circular reasoning.

(4) Being born "according to the flesh" is a natural birth, not a miraculous one. If Paul believed otherwise, he would have said so.

(5) The Nazorenes were declared heretical by the evolving Church when their views no longer matched the Church's evolving Pauline orthodoxy.

(6) I have provided clear evidence. But some must accept or reject evidence based, not on its accuracy, but on their belief system.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 12 2005, 10:16 AM'](1) No. I didn't vote. Political elections and Catholic dogma are established by vote (see ecumenical councils). But these are not always based on evidence. Only prejudgments.

(2) Yes. The Church was infallibly wrong about the Vulgate as the Tobias translation and 1 Corinthians illustrate. It was also infallibly wrong in teaching the moral legitimacy of chattel slavery based on its interpretation of the Bible (and natural law), a teaching since reversed.

(3) Yes indeed. The Bible says the church and the church says the bible. That's called circular reasoning.

(4) Being born "according to the flesh" is a natural birth, not a miraculous one. If Paul believed otherwise, he would have said so.

(5) The Nazorenes were declared heretical by the evolving Church when their views no longer matched the Church's evolving Pauline orthodoxy.

(6) I have provided clear evidence. But  some must accept or reject evidence based, not on its accuracy, but on their belief system.
[right][snapback]609648[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1. Of course not. Your belief system doesn't allow for anything different.
2. In your eyes. Your belief system doesn't allow for anything different.
3. Wrong. But your belief system doesn't allow for anything different.
4. The Church agrees that Christ had a natural birth. Hence the fully human part of hypostatic union. Although, your belief system won't allow you to see that.
5. The Ebionites are a heresy. Your belief system won't allow you to see anything different.
6. You are a twisty noodle. You have proved nothing. Not on this forum. The clear evidence is what I have put forth, as well as others, in relation to the Church. You have not debunked that. But your belief system won't allow you to accept that.

Perhaps you need to take you belief system and find someplace that will accept it. As it stands, you are contradictory to the Church. At best, you suffer from invincible igorance. I would pray for you. I would also hope that you assent your will. However it must be you who do this, freely. If not, perhaps your journey will lead you someplace else.

Assent your will or move on. The Church is not wrong. Just you.

[Socrates]

][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]

(1) You have provided no evidence that the original Christians denied the divinity of Christ. All the material I have provided (including the Gospels themselves) affirming the divinity of Christ predates any reference to the Ebionite heresy denying Christ's divinity.

And, if you read Acts, you will note that the Christian's preaching in the temple provoked quite a violent reaction from many of the Jews. And many of the Jews were converted by the power of the preaching and miracles. The disciples were summoned before the Sanhedrin and they wanted to put them to death. (This hardly qualifies as "no objection"! ) Saul, before His conversion, and others sought to kill the Christians for their "blasphemy."

And evidently, you are unfamiliar with basic Christian theology, as Jesus Christ is not "another divinity," but God the Son (a different Person of the same God).

And again, in Acts, Peter and the disciples baptized and worked miracles [b]in the name of Jesus Christ[/b].
"You must repent," Peter answered "and everyone of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins . . " (Acts 2:38)
"in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, walk!" (Acts 3:7)
"Aeneas, Jesus Christ cures you." (Acts 9:34)

If Jesus was regarded by the early Church as just a man whom God acted through, why would these deeds be done in Christ's name rather than God's? (And according to Jewish theology of the time, God alone had the power to forgive sin - see Mark 2:10)

(2) Really grasping at straws here, aren't you, LittleLes?
Rom 1:3: "[b]the Son of God[/b] descended from David according to the flesh."
Paul here proclaims that Jesus is the Son of God (and it is clear from the rest of Paul, that he regards Christ as literally God's Son.) Jesus, the Son of God, really did become Man, and was born of human flesh (His Blessed Mother, Mary.) This is Christian theology that Christ is true God AND true Man. ("The Word became Flesh") This is the central mystery of the Incarnation. If Paul regarded Christ as not divine, wouldn't it be redundant to mention that He came into the flesh?
Paul has said nothing here contrary to the Virginal Conception of Christ.

Edited June 12, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 12 2005, 04:16 PM']
]

(1) You have provided no evidence that the original Christians denied the divinity of Christ. All the material I have provided (including the Gospels themselves) affirming the divinity of Christ predates any reference to the Ebionite heresy denying Christ's divinity.

(2).And again, in Acts, Peter and the disciples baptized and worked miracles [b]in the name of Jesus Christ[/b].

Response


(1) "The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. 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). " (See the catholic Encyclopedia article mentioned above).

You may want to read further concerning the beliefs of the original Palestinian Christians.

(2) Thank you for noting that baptism in Acts (mentioned four times) was never in the name of the Trinity.