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.