Posted on 08/01/2019 9:03:46 AM PDT by Salvation
For many years, the image I had of St. Paul was that of a bold evangelist who went from town to town teaching and preaching powerfully about Christ. I envisioned his audience mesmerized as he preached and took on his opponents.
I ultimately altered my view a bit based on scriptural descriptions, some of which we are currently reading in the Office of Readings. I have no doubt that he was a brilliant theologian. Paul was reputed to have been one of the greatest students of one of the greatest rabbis of the time, Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). I also do not question his zeal for Christ, and I can picture that fervor reflected on his face as he preached and taught. However, it would seem that Paul was not in fact recognized as a particularly gifted preacher. Consider the following texts from Scripture:
The key element to glean from this passage is that people regarded Paul as rather humble in person but in contrast quite bold and assertive in his letters. This does not paint the picture of a bold, fearsome preacher.
Here is even clearer evidence that some (though surely not all or even most) thought of Paul’s presence and preaching as weak and of no account. The Greek phrase λόγος ἐξουθενημένος (logos exouthenhmenos), translated here as “speech contemptible,” can also be translated as “words or speech of no account,” or “words or speech to be despised.” Of course, because Paul himself is reporting this, he may well be exaggerating the perception of his preaching out of a kind of humility. However, this is further evidence that Paul may not have been a highly gifted or bold preacher, at least from a worldly perspective.
The identity of the “superapostles” is debated, but there is wide agreement that it does not refer to the twelve apostles chosen by Christ. Rather, Paul is likely alluding to itinerant preachers of the time, most of whom were well known for their oratorical skills. Some of them may have been Judaizers who opposed Paul, but it would seem that they could draw a crowd. Perhaps they are somewhat like the revivalists of today. Paul seems to acknowledge that he is not a great speaker but refuses to concede that he is inferior to anyone in knowledge of the faith.
Paul claims no “clever” oratorical skill; rather, he underscores his lack of eloquence to emphasize that the power is in the cross of Christ.
Luke describes Paul as talking “on and on.” The sermon seems to have put the young Eutychus right to sleep, and results in his falling three flights to his death. Paul runs down and raises him from the dead. (All in a night’s work, I guess!) Paul then goes back upstairs to complete the Mass. It is a humorous and touching anecdote in many ways, but it is also a story that illustrates the somewhat soporific effect of Paul’s preaching.
So, it would seem that Paul did not possess great oratorical. This is somewhat surprising given his astonishing missionary accomplishments, but we must avoid superficiality in understanding the power of God’s Word. The power is in God; the battle is His. We may prefer to listen to skilled speakers, but God can write straight with crooked lines and make a way out of no way. If God could speak through Balaam’s donkey (see Num 22:21), He can speak through us, too.
Avoiding Superficiality – As a priest, I work hard to develop my preaching skills because I think the people of God deserve this. In the end, though, none of us should ignore the fact that God can speak in and through the humblest of people and in the most unlikely circumstances. Paul may not have had the rhetorical skills we think he should have had, but he was blessed with many other gifts. He was a brilliant theologian, had amazing zeal and energy, and was committed enough to walk thousands of miles and endure horrible sufferings so that he could proclaim Christ crucified and risen. Paul was also a natural leader and one of the most fruitful evangelizers the Church has ever known. We tend to prize oratorical skill and force of personality, but there is obviously more to evangelizing effectively than eloquence and charisma.
Our culture—particularly since the advent of television, radio, and the Internet—has come to focus primarily on personal magnetism and the ability to “turn a phrase.” The ability to communicate well is surely a great gift, but there are many others as well. In valuing certain gifts over others, we risk injustice and superficiality. The Church needs all our gifts.
What gifts do you have? God can use them!
Answer you're own question.
YA DA YA DA YA DA “The Catholic church believes in saint worship...they believe Mary is more important than Jesus” “The protestants are heretics!...they are not worthy to partake in our mass..” makes one wonder which group is more likely to be favored of God
Oh, the even money bet was no answer. They cannot contend for their denomination; but will complain in a heartbeat those who question their denomination.
Take heart momMD, for as long as I can remember there have been so called “christians” who have visciously ripped and discouraged real Christians on FR that I can honestly doubt their true intentions and thus use the little “c” to describe them. I’m sure true Christians with loving hearts would uplift, encourage and be gentle with others of a like mind and if correction be needed to either proof or rebuke each other in a calm, reasoning and loving manner using scripture. The never ending snarks and one-upmanship of some soon become obvious to the silent majority of our viewers as to who those are the true flies in the ointment of honest inquiry
Almost word for word every week at mass!
Yet not a peep here.
“Which is why “Sola Scriptura” is invalid. The record of the early Church Fathers is completely clear on the origin and practice of the Mass from the very earliest historical records we have. “I can’t find it in Scripture” is a complete copout. “, proves why Sola Scripture MUST be COMPLETELY valid. To take the “historical records” of the Catholic Church to be more authoritative than Scripture itself, is heresy.
I have no idea what you are referencing
Literally everywhere, in both Scripture and history. The establishment of the consecrated office of permanent deacon was done specifically to allow the Apostles (and their successors) more time to dedicate to offering the Mass.
Show me an instance in Scripture where "the breaking of the Bread" was done by someone other than an Apostle or a consecrated successor of an Apostle.
A friendly word....nobody has time to wade through this kind of verbal hurricane deluge. Stick to short, to-the-point posts.
Literally everywhere, in both Scripture and history.
That is simply false as regards Scripture, which is the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the New Testament church believed, while history testifies to the progressive accretion of traditions of men (while retaining enough salvfic Truth so that a remnant could be saved)
The establishment of the consecrated office of permanent deacon was done specifically to allow the Apostles (and their successors) more time to dedicate to offering the Mass.
Nonsense: the Apostles never are described offering the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sin, nor referred to as a distinct sacerdotal class. Instead Paul taught that the Lord's supper was to proclaim the Lord's death by which He purchased the church, by sharing a communal meal as "one bread," thus showing comm-union with Christ and each other as members bought by the sinless shed blood of Christ.
Which some Corinthians were not doing - eating independently and ignoring others - and thus were not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, and thus were not recognizing the church as the body of Christ, and thus were told to examine themselves and not come hungry to the to eat the Lord's supper. 1 Cor. 10,11
Show me an instance in Scripture where "the breaking of the Bread" was done by someone other than an Apostle or a consecrated successor of an Apostle.
I do not need to, for the Holy Spirit is not negligent to describe the duties of pastors, and surely would not charge them with their most important unique function, and or describe them doing so, as well as showing the Eucharist as being a sacrifice for sin and the means of obtaining spiritual life.
Instead, in the few descriptions in Acts that may refer to the Lord's supper, we see that the disciples, "continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (Acts 2:46)
And aside from the mention of the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12, there is not mention of the Lord's supper anywhere in Acts thru Revelation except in 1 Co. 10+11 described above.
Thus it is your job to show where the Holy Spirit records or charges them pastors with offering the Lord's supper as sacrifice for sin as their unique function, or why the Spirit would not do so while describing the commemoration of the Lord's death.
A friendly word....nobody has time to wade through this kind of verbal hurricane deluge. Stick to short, to-the-point posts.
Meaning Catholics want to be free to incessantly parrot their specious assertions and polemics, but when provided with a link to substantial refutation , they dismiss it as too much to read. Yet they can link to their propaganda.
Why?
They can't even get THIS right!!!
Highlighting really seems to bring out the Sam Kinneson in some folks...
 'When I tell you what imagery found in Scripture REALLY means,' the magnificant Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather superior tone,
' it means just whomever I choose it to mean, neither more nor less;
but sometimes two or more different things at once.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can define imagery to mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, C.SS.R, S.S.L., O.F.M, S.T.D 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
Sorry FC; but the New Testament IS the 'earliest records you have'!
This just in!
Confirmation Bias discovered!!
Film at eleven.
Amazing how that little fact always gets over looked!
********************
I know why they don't want to read through it.
1. It requires effort.
2. It will totally contradict what they've been spoonfed.
1Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food.
2So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.
3“Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.
4“But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
5The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.
6And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.
Acts 15:1-6
Scripture seems to disagree with you.
That was my point. The majority of my comment was in quotes, quoting the erroneous points made by Wonder Warthog. I was afraid it might be interpreted that I was agreeing with his words. I should have more clearly delineated my comment from his. :)
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.