Posted on 09/18/2010 8:26:32 PM PDT by markomalley
Paul himself, and it’s in the bible
Christ, whom you say you “plenty of faith” in found Paul acceptable and Paul was inspired to write down a large part of God's word.
So are Paul's writings evidence of his “unbalance, looniness’? Please, do tell us!
,/i>Where does St. Paul mention St. John the Baptist? Where does he mention all the other of the 12 apostles?
You question me as though you think I must answer you. LOL!
What is this, the inquisition? You find it odd that I do not comply? ROFL!
Paul's writing style thus indicates a very well educated man.
Mary often appears to Catholics as an angel of light. Paul mentions the other apostles and by name
Then he MUST have mentioned St. John the Baptist. Where?
Not a Hebrew Scholar; a Hellenist.
Saul (whose Roman cognomen was Paul; see Acts xiii. 9) was born of Jewish parents in the first decade of the common era at Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts ix. 11, xxi. 39, xxii. 3). The claim in Rom. xi. 1 and Phil. iii. 5 that he was of the tribe of Benjamin, suggested by the similarity of his name with that of the first Israelitish king, is, if the passages are genuine, a false one, no tribal lists or pedigrees of this kind having been in existence at that time (see Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.” i. 7, 5; Pes. 62b; M. Sachs, “Beiträge zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung,” 1852, ii. 157). Nor is there any indication in Paul’s writings or arguments that he had received the rabbinical training ascribed to him by Christian writers, ancient and modern; least of all could he have acted or written as he did had he been, as is alleged (Acts xxii. 3), the disciple of Gamaliel I., the mild Hillelite. His quotations from Scripture, which are all taken, directly or from memory, from the Greek version, betray no familiarity with the original Hebrew text. The Hellenistic literature, such as the Book of Wisdom and other Apocrypha, as well as Philo (see Hausrath, “Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte,” ii. 18-27; Siegfried, “Philo von Alexandria,” 1875, pp. 304-310; Jowett, “Commentary on the Thessalonians and Galatians,” i. 363-417), was the sole source for his eschatological and theological system. Notwithstanding the emphatic statement, in Phil. iii. 5, that he was “a Hebrew of the Hebrews”—a rather unusual term, which seems to refer to his nationalistic training and conduct (comp. Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2), since his Jewish birth is stated in the preceding words “of the stock of Israel”—he was, if any of the Epistles that bear his name are really his, entirely a Hellenist in thought and sentiment. As such he was imbued with the notion that “the whole creation groaneth” for liberation from “the prison-house of the body,” from this earthly existence, which, because of its pollution by sin and death, is intrinsically evil (Gal. i. 4; Rom. v. 12, vii. 23-24, viii. 22; I Cor. vii. 31; II Cor. v. 2, 4; comp. Philo, “De Allegoriis Legum,” iii. 75; idem, “De Vita Mosis,” iii. 17; idem, “De Ebrietate,” § 26; and Wisdom ii.24). As a Hellenist, also, he distinguished between an earthly and a heavenly Adam (I Cor. xv. 45-49; comp. Philo, “De Allegoriis Legum,” i. 12), and, accordingly, between the lower psychic. life and the higher spiritual life attained only by asceticism (Rom. xii. 1; I Cor. vii. 1-31, ix. 27, xv. 50; comp. Philo, “De Profugis,” § 17; and elsewhere). His whole state of mind shows the influence of the theosophic or Gnostic lore of Alexandria, especially the Hermes literature recently brought to light by Reizenstein in his important work “Poimandres,” 1904 (see Index, s. v. “Paulus,” “Briefe des Paulus,” and “Philo”); hence his strange belief in supernatural powers (Reizenstein, l.c. pp. 77, 287), in fatalism, in “speaking in tongues” (I Cor. xii.-xiv.; comp. Reizenstein, l.c. p. 58; Dieterich, “Abraxas,” pp. 5 et seq.; Weinel, “Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister,” 1899, pp. 72 et seq.; I Cor. xv. 8; II Cor. xii. 1-6; Eph. iii. 3), and in mysteries or sacraments (Rom. xvi. 25; Col. i. 26, ii. 2, iv. 3; Eph. i. 9, iii. 4, vi. 19)—a term borrowed solely from heathen rites.
Read more: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=283&letter=S&search=Paul%20of%20Tarsus#ixzz10U0KQJXn
So, he stretched the truth a little. And I’m going to take him seriously, when he clearly brags that God works through him and that’s how he does more work than anyone else?
My recollection is that she appears as a beautiful woman dressed in white. Var., on a piece of toast, on a water-stained wall, in the clouds, etc. I have never heard anyone describe her with wings, or as an angel.
The author refers to Romans 12:1, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”
as an example of Paul discussing asceticism.
“... between the lower psychic. life and the higher spiritual life attained only by asceticism (Rom. xii. 1)
And why does the author attribute this to Paul? Because,
“ As a Hellenist, also, he distinguished between an earthly and a heavenly Adam”! and further cites 1 Cor. 12:1-31, which discusses different spiritual gifts within the body of Christ, as support for his comment on Paul's supposed belief in asceticism.
That “holiness, being acceptable to God” was avoiding the the moral rot of this world as Paul explained to the Ephesians at the beginning of chapter 5 of that letter and which James (1:27) termed ‘being without spot from the world’.
There nothing there even suggesting asceticism unless one calls moral restraint such.
Did you actually read this garbage from the Jewish Encyclopedia, of all places!
Oh, you know more about Jews than the Jewish Encyclopedia? Fascinating!
It’s amazing how many RC’s hereon agree with Jimmy Carter about St Paul.
I would hardly ask a Jewish rabbi to comment on the validity of Christian belief but if he's authoritative to you for interpretation of Paul's writings, which he calls “spurious”, then you'll love his comment on the Last Supper.
“Still more is the partaking of the bread and the wine of the communion meal, the so-called “Lord's Supper,” rendered the means of a mystic union with Christ, “a participation in his blood and body,” exactly as was the Mithraic meal a real participation in the blood and body of Mithra”
I.e., the Last Supper is the equivalent of the Mithraic worship and vice versa.
The Pharisees hated Christ and did all they could to discredit him and his teachings and their spirit lives on today.
Most welcome. Hope I didn’t step all over your response.
You don’t like that source? How about wikipedia?
___________________________________________________________
Authorship
Paul Writing His Epistles, 16th century (Blaffer Foundation Collection, Houston, Texas).Paul’s letters are largely written to churches which he had visited; he was a great traveler, visiting Cyprus, Asia Minor (modern Turkey), mainland Greece, Crete, and Rome. His letters are full of expositions of what Christians should believe and how they should live. He does not tell his correspondents (or the modern reader) much about the life of Jesus; his most explicit references are to the Last Supper[1 Cor. 11:17-34] and the crucifixion and resurrection.[1 Cor. 15] His specific references to Jesus’ teaching are likewise sparse,[1 Cor. 7:10-11] [9:14] raising the question, still disputed, as to how consistent his account of the faith is with that of the four canonical Gospels, Acts, and the Epistle of James. The view that Paul’s Christ is very different from the historical Jesus has been expounded by Adolf Harnack among many others. Nevertheless, he provides the first written account of what it is to be a Christian and thus of Christian spirituality.
Of the thirteen letters traditionally attributed to Paul and included in the Western New Testament canon, there is little or no dispute that Paul actually wrote at least seven, those being Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon. Hebrews, which was ascribed to him in antiquity, was questioned even then, never having an ancient attribution, and in modern times is considered by most experts as not by Paul (see also Antilegomena). The authorship of the remaining six Pauline epistles is disputed to varying degrees.
The authenticity of Colossians has been questioned[46] on the grounds that it contains an otherwise unparalleled description (among his writings) of Jesus as ‘the image of the invisible God,’ a Christology found elsewhere only in John’s gospel. On the other hand, the personal notes in the letter connect it to Philemon, unquestionably the work of Paul. Internal evidence shows close connection with Philippians[47]. Ephesians is a very similar letter to Colossians, but is almost entirely lacking in personal reminiscences. Its style is unique. It lacks the emphasis on the cross to be found in other Pauline writings, reference to the Second Coming is missing, and Christian marriage is exalted in a way which contrasts with the reference in 1 Cor. 7:8-9. Finally, according to R.E. Brown, it exalts the Church in a way suggestive of a second generation of Christians, ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets’ now past.[48] The defenders of its Pauline authorship argue that it was intended to be read by a number of different churches and that it marks the final stage of the development of Paul of Tarsus’s thinking. It has to be noted, too, that the moral portion of the Epistle, consisting of the last two chapters has the closest affinity with similar portions of other Epistles, while the whole admirably fits in with the known details of St. Paul’s life, and throws considerable light upon them[47].
Russian Orthodox icon of the Apostle Paul, 18th century (Iconostasis of Transfiguration Church, Kizhi Monastery, Karelia, Russia).
Saint Paul, Byzantine ivory relief, 6th - early 7th century (Musée de Cluny)The Pastoral Epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus have likewise been put in question as Pauline works. Three main reasons are advanced: first, their difference in vocabulary, style and theology from Paul’s acknowledged writings; Defenders of the authenticity note, that they were then probably written in the name and with the authority of the Apostle by one of his companions, to whom he distinctly explained what had to be written, or to whom he gave a written summary of the points to be developed, and that when the letters were finished, St. Paul read them through, approved them, and signed them[47]. Secondly, the difficulty in fitting them into Paul’s biography as we have it.[49] They, like Colossians and Ephesians, were written from prison but suppose Paul’s release and travel thereafter. However, Christianity was not yet declared a religio illicita at the time they were written, and according to Roman law there was nothing deserving of death against him[47]. Finally, the concerns expressed are very much the practical ones as to how a church should function. They are more about maintenance than about mission[citation needed].
2 Thessalonians, like Colossians, is questioned on stylistic grounds, with some[citation needed] noting, among other peculiarities, a dependence on 1 Thessalonians yet a distinctiveness in language from the Pauline corpus. This, again, is explainable by the possibility of St. Paul requesting one of his companions to write the letter for him under his instructions[47].
Well, I wouldn’t say all called them all “knuckleheads”...perhaps some and maybe with good reason. FR gives much room for differences of how writers are seen. We’ll never agree with them all nor differ with all.
As you know well most here are quite passionate about their beliefs and those who they esteem as “authoritive” in their writings. Not news we see them played out here on FR.
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.