Posted on 07/14/2004 6:12:39 AM PDT by NYer
I implied nothing of the sort. I asked why the focus was on St. Paul's 'Epistle', rather than on Matthew's 'Gospel' that quotes our Lord, Jesus Christ. Matthew was an eyewitness to the life of Christ. Paul was converted on the road to Damascus, where he intended to destroy the new christians. In a court of law, given the opportunity, who would you bring in as a witness to an event - someone who was actually present or someone who heard about it from those who were witnesses? My choice would be the eyewitness.
So far, not one of the individuals pinged in that post has offered a comment. Their silence speaks volumes.
***My choice would be the eyewitness.***
Paul's inspired words are A-OK by me. What's this preference for an eye witness? Are not Paul's words in 1 Corinthians a part of the canon?
*** In a court of law, given the opportunity, who would you bring in as a witness to an event - someone who was actually present or someone who heard about it from those who were witnesses? ***
The Holy Spirit inspired both the gospels and epistles. Your analogy is inappropriate in that it implies the witnesses are speaking on their own accord.
***So far, not one of the individuals pinged in that post has offered a comment. Their silence speaks volumes.***
Baloney, NYer. I just now read the ping. My "silence" only means I was doing something else.
St. Paul's words are A-OK by me, too!
What's this preference for an eye witness?
No need to play coy with me, Dr. Steve. This is my understanding of your question. Hypothetical situation: You are accused of murdering your neighbor, Mike, at his house. At the time of the incident, you and your good friend, Tom, were preparing Sunday's sermon at your house. Several weeks after the demise of your neighbor, the police show up at your door. They arrest you for the murder of your neighbor, Mike. A friend of Mike's has accused you of the murder. Meanwhile, one of Tom's friends, Bill, steps forward and advocates for you based on what he has heard frorm Tom. The case goes to trial in court. It is a murder trial. Who do you call as an eyewitness? Bill or Tom?
Did I suggest that you were the ONLY one pinged to that post?
Well, so far you have not responded to my post 60. Should I draw the conclusion that your silence speaks volumes, or have you just been busy with other things.
Please note post #60 and correct the title of this thread to the original: "PRIEST AND DOZENS OF OTHERS WITNESSED UNUSUAL IMAGES IN BLESSED SACRAMENT."
As it is posted it is misleading and inaccurate.
Unbelievable ... let's change the topic to avoid having to deal with the true words of Christ.
Admin ... please insert the words (former) in parantheses before the word Baptists in the title of this thread. Thank you VERY MUCH.
***No need to play coy with me, Dr. Steve.***
I am not being coy. Your court analogy is not valid. Your two witnesses are not analogous to the writers of Holy Scripture. If you believe in inerrancy, and I presume you do, then you should not elevate one above the other.
You presume that Bill only knows what Tom has told him. In reality, the Holy Spirit is directing the words/testimony of BOTH Bill and Tom and either is an infallible witness.
Neither is impeachable -- they are both canonical.
Your court room case is missing a witnes, the Holy Spirit.
The request to modify the title of this thread has been officially requested, are you now ready to address the distinction in words provided by the eyewitness, Matthew vs those words spoken by St. Paul who heard them, second hand, from the apostles. Which carries greater weight? The one who heard them or the one who heard of them?
I am not changing the topic. Nevertheless, I do think the header is misleading. I don't fault you and do not think it was deliberate.
Why insert (former) in the altered title? That is NOT the title the author used. The link says:
PRIEST AND DOZENS OF OTHERS WITNESSED UNUSUAL IMAGES IN BLESSED SACRAMENT
See post #69.
Both carry EQUAL weight. Why? THE HOLY SPIRIT directed both in the inerrant record.
Your analogy has a faulty premise. Do you believe the canon is without error?
So you equate Paul's statement: Christ lives in me and I in Him
with Christ's own words?
Yes, actually you did imply it the way you stated it and bolded the word Truth and the way the sentence was worded. No offense, but your analogy just doesn't work. You are trying to compare the ways of man with the Word of God. There is no comparison. It doesn't matter what someone did or who they were before they came to the Lord as with Saul. Once someone is converted, they are a new creation. And the Word of God does not have different levels of Truth. It is all the Word, breathed by the Holy Spirit, "living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." It doesn't say just the part that is in red. So my choice is all of it. Because all the writers were witnesses to God - the Holy Spirit.
I have no idea why others have not responded. There are many, many valid reasons for not answering. I would hate to be one who predecides someone's motives. Not only that, it has nothing to do with me.
In Jesus,
NYer, I am simply asking you to acknowledge Paul's words as inerrant? Is that so difficult?
Because the "DOZENS" of "OTHER WITNESSES" included (FORMER) BAPTISTS.
Good for you. Have a nice day.
I am a Roman Catholic that follows the liturgy of the Maronite Catholic Church. Each Sunday, following the reading of the Epistle, the priest incenses and reads the Gospel. When he has finished reading the Gospel, he elevates the Book of the Gospels and proclaims to all assembled, "This is the Truth". Would you deny that the Gospel is anything less than the Truth. There are truths in the other books of the Bible; the Gospels, however, are the actual words of Christ, as recorded by the Apostles - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. St. Paul was NOT an apostle.
That is not to say that his words bear less weight; rather, the words of the eyewitness Matthew carry far more significance as he was present when Christ, revealed His presence in the bread and wine.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
This discussion illustrates my earlier point that at best, Catholics and Protestants can agree to disagree on the doctrine of the Real Presence. Beyond that, it just turns into a “I believe this verse means” argument which can continue ad naseum.
I guess I'm confused by this statement. When does Paul present a gospel? Plenty of letters to the apostles, but Gospel? I see only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John doing that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.