Replies

Do you realize that by your statement, you are implying that Paul is lying and deceiving and presenting a false gospel? It isn't a matter of one is Truth and the other isn't. They both are.

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.

So far, not one of the individuals pinged in that post has offered a comment. Their silence speaks volumes.

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.

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.

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,

Since I was quoted at the top of the post in question: I wasn't at all trying to set Paul against the Gospels- an attrocius thing, reeking of all manner of stinking modernism. Rather, I quoted Paul in order to further explain the Eucharistic mystery. It was Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians that was largely responsible for swaying me away from a Zwinglian symbolic belief.

The question seems rather moot here- whether or not one thinks the eyewitnesses are somehow more important or not doesn't terribly matter; St. Matthew and the rest did not offer interpretation to the Eucharist (one might say St. John did, but he did not explicitly link the chapter six discourse to the Eucharist). St. Paul does- "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." I found it hard to get around this- and because of it I began to read "This is my body" without seeing only a symbol.

At any rate I am at a loss to see why the Gospels convey the Real Presence more strongly the Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians. Besides, it is not very catholic to elevate one part of Scripture over another- leave that for the "higher critics" and Jesus Seminar people.