I would take it easy on the aged and infirm. :) But, I'm back from a week off and ready to sharpen the swords.
Good for you.
Dr. Luke did not become anything other than a recorder of history, and a darn good one at that.
Really? What about the icon of Mary, the first icon that we know of that is now in the possession of the Patriarch of Constantinople? What about his accompanying Paul on his second missionary journey? He was an evangelist, as he described himself in Acts, along with Paul.
Thus the monolithic gigantus dreamed up by Rome is not patterned after the very Book to which they lay claim (and then hold this Paul fellow at arm's length).
As more and more people became Christians, the size of the Church also increased. We hold Paul as dear as we hold Peter, and not at arm's length.
And don't be shocked at me giving equal recognition to all of Scripture as the Word of God.
The Word of God is Jesus; the word of God is the Bible. All of Scripture is not Jesus. The Chronicler, for instance.
I simply read the Book and pay very close attention to the Apostle sent to my group, rather than reading other people's mail first.
You pay more attention to your bishop than to God Himself? Interesting.
Peter seemed to defer to Paul's intelligence and comprehension of the entire picture, "...and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." IIPet. 3:15ff
Yes, Paul presented himself to the Apostles and they eventually accepted his bona fides.
It is remarkable that folks associated with your organization do not like the words of Paul, (".... freaky Pauline epistles. St. Paul got a few things right, but he was likely just as loony as his protegee, Calvin.").
Please do not pin these words either on me or on the Church.
May we postulate that Paul's words taken in their plain sense set aside much Catholic theology with respect to salvation, predestination, free will, election and "Christian living" and as such they are repugnant?
No. Pauline teachings are completely throughout the Catechism, including all of these topics. Feel free to browse; the Catechism is open to all.
And, while you may think that we lack information of Paul's revelation, ("Remember that we have no details of the revelation.."), Paul himself claims that he was taught this directly from Jesus Christ Himself, not by men. (Gal. 1:12, "For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.") and that record is what fills his letters.
What I meant was that we have no details of what went on - the description was of a blinding light and a voice. In Acts, the description runs thus:
Acts 9: 3 On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" 5 He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do." 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing; 3 so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus.
It may have been all done during the weekend in Damascus or the three years in Arabia, but it explains how the entire Bible fits together, the true "decoder ring".
There is no claim of anything in Arabia; Paul is not the true decoder ring; among other things, he does not teach the Trinity (he is not antiTrinitarian, but you cannot construct the Triune doctrine out of his letters). The thing to remember is that Paul is a bishop instructing his often rebellious flock, not God Himself.
You seem to resist the things he teaches when he ties the whole Book together. Certainly other Catholics around here do and that is evidence of the general perspective of Catholicism.
We believe that Jesus is the Rock and the basis. The NT is read through the words of Jesus and the OT through the New.
Whether Paul spent a few years with Jews first is immaterial. The Acts of the Apostles clearly explains he turned away from them and went to the Gentiles.
Not entirely. Read through his missionary journeys.
And when he did, "...as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48) This is a straightforward statement of predestination that "freaky" Calvin identified and the Catholic Church denies.
Acts 13: 43 After the congregation had dispersed, many Jews and worshipers who were converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to remain faithful to the grace of God. 44 On the following sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. 45 When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and with violent abuse contradicted what Paul said. 46 Both Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first, but since you reject it and condemn yourselves as unworthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. 12 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, 'I have made you a light to the Gentiles, that you may be an instrument of salvation to the ends of the earth.'" 48 The Gentiles were delighted when they heard this and glorified the word of the Lord. All who were destined for eternal life came to believe, 49 and the word of the Lord continued to spread through the whole region.
Paul was speaking to the Gentile converts to Judaism here. And the phrase "destined for eternal life" rings a bell - I think that read something about that, but couldn't find it. I shall ask my friend Kosta for his input on this.
Just as you are saying that the direct words of the Father have been set aside by the words of the Son when you say the Mosaic Law is eclipsed by Jesus' commands.
Umm, that is the meaning of New Testament and the New Covenant.
Recall, the "ten" commandments were direct verbal statements from God the Father. How can your hermeneutic prioritize the Son over the Father?
I don't think that Jesus gainsaid the 10 Commandments.
Your organization, OTOH, simply picks and chooses.
Certainly, the Scripture was chosen. The versions were chosen and the interpretations were chosen. The early Church did not put much theological weight into Trinitarian doctrine, and it was not until Nicea that it was defined. Not to say that the belief is wrong (and there are many groups that say that it is), but the Church took some time to define it.
I am not sure what your question is, Mark. Acts 13 contains several statements:
(1) the mission to the Gentiles was the result of Israel's refusal of Christianity, (Act 13:46) an afterthought *. The Church in Israel was dying and had to find a home elsewhere.
* notwithstanding Mat 28:19, apparently a latter-day addition
(2) Some are "put in place," or "cued in" (Gr. tasso) for eternal life but through their own will they condemn themselves to lose their place in it. (Act 13:46)
(3) Those who believe are destined (not predestined) to eternal life. (Act 13:48)
Actually, all 213 mitzvot (commnanbdments) in the OT are God's direct words. Why cherry pick only 10?
Dutch: Just as you are saying that the direct words of the Father have been set aside by the words of the Son when you say the Mosaic Law is eclipsed by Jesus' commands.
Mark Umm, that is the meaning of New Testament and the New Covenant.
That is not true Mark. The New Covenant was mentioned in the OT as something God intended for the House of Judah and the House of Israel only (the southern and northern kingdoms). Christians then borrowed this through the book of Hebrews and made it look as if it was intended for them.
There is a certain skill in this sentence. It keeps one thinking...did he mean this or did he mean that? But I digress.
And now I notice from other threads that you have been busy discussing your dislike of Paul. This in itself is an interesting disclosure, but it doesn't necessarily mean you dislike his teachings or deny they are Scripture. Would you care to amplify? I know they appear in your Catechism, you already mentioned that. But there is a convenient dismissal available in saying, "Of course they are important, just look over there." without saying "I think they are important and true and I embrace what he is teaching."
And as far as Paul not being trinitarian, such a claim is astonishing. Colossians 1:13ff, "For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. And He (the Son) is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also the head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him,..."
If that isn't a description of Jesus as God creating all, managing all, having dominion over all, possessing all right to honor, holding all together, then I cannot understand what more Paul could have said. Paul has ascribed everything to Jesus. And, this is just one of many places Paul identifies the Son and the Father as one. How is it that Paul is not trinitarian?
PS: As far as that referral you made to kosta regarding Acts 13:48, the response was so inaccurate and full of pre-digested propaganda that it contributed nothing. I ping him here only as a reluctant courtesy, my slavish obedience to rules. His scholarship is non-existent, so if he responds I will ignore. The text stands as originally reported.