Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Female priests in the Roman Catholic Church ....

Options
167891012»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    The texts and basis' you seek are written in this thread between pages 1 and 28.

    It only goes to 9 pages on the PC !


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭nuac


    But he did meet Jesus - the Bible says so.

    I mean, how do we know anyone met Jesus or that there even was a Jesus? Somehow or other you have to decide that the canon of scripture is divinely authentic and true.

    Where in the Bible is it stated that Paul/Saul met Jesus?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    nuac wrote: »
    Where in the Bible is it stated that Paul/Saul met Jesus?

    ROad to Damascus

    Its interesting to note that Pauls Mentor, Gamaliel is mentioned as advising caution when dealing with Jesus. HE no doubt would have see and heard Him speak. Its quiet likely that the young Paul would have accompanied his teacher on these excursions and heard Jesus for himself ( pure conjecture but plausible)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭nuac


    ROad to Damascus

    Its interesting to note that Pauls Mentor, Gamaliel is mentioned as advising caution when dealing with Jesus. HE no doubt would have see and heard Him speak. Its quiet likely that the young Paul would have accompanied his teacher on these excursions and heard Jesus for himself ( pure conjecture but plausible)

    Thanks. My recollection is while on the way to Damascus Paul ( then Saul ) was knocked off his horse by a blinding flash. His companions did not refer to anybody else, nor did they hear any conversation.

    If Paul had met Jesus then, or at some other time. surely he would described the meeting




    .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    nuac wrote: »
    Thanks. My recollection is while on the way to Damascus Paul ( then Saul ) was knocked off his horse by a blinding flash. His companions did not refer to anybody else, nor did they hear any conversation.

    If Paul had met Jesus then, or at some other time. surely he would described the meeting




    .
    Quiet possibly, but we should also remember that we don't have all his writings. There was another letter to the Corinthians that he refers to which we don't have and also one to the Laodicean church. He says to the Colossians to swap theirs with Laodicea.

    There's also the book of the wars of the lord and the book of Gad mentioned that we don't have in the OT.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I think if Paul had met Jesus (other than on the road to Damascus) he would have mentioned it more than once. He regularly defends his authority and standing as an apostle along which those who actually did encounter Jesus, so it would obviously be relevant in those passages to mention any encounters that he had. So it's not just that there might or might not be lost writings that mention encounters with Jesus; it's that there are surviving writings in the context of which you'd expect him to mention any encounters with Jesus, but he doesn't.

    As for Gamaliel "no doubt" having seen and heard Jesus preach, there's no reason to think this. Gamaliel was based in Jerusalem; Jesus mostly avoided Jerusalem until the week before his death. Gamaliel does not "advise caution when dealing with Jesus"; he advises caution when dealing with Jesus's followers in Jerusalem, after the death of Jesus.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I think if Paul had met Jesus (other than on the road to Damascus) he would have mentioned it more than once. He regularly defends his authority and standing as an apostle along which those who actually did encounter Jesus, so it would obviously be relevant in those passages to mention any encounters that he had. So it's not just that there might or might not be lost writings that mention encounters with Jesus; it's that there are surviving writings in the context of which you'd expect him to mention any encounters with Jesus, but he doesn't.

    As for Gamaliel "no doubt" having seen and heard Jesus preach, there's no reason to think this. Gamaliel was based in Jerusalem; Jesus mostly avoided Jerusalem until the week before his death. Gamaliel does not "advise caution when dealing with Jesus"; he advises caution when dealing with Jesus's followers in Jerusalem, after the death of Jesus.

    I stand corrected. It is indeed Acts 5.
    It would be foolish ( at least in my opinion) to not think that Gamaliel heard Jesus. We do know that the Pharisees regularly went to hear Him speak.
    With regards the missing letters by Paul and his hearing Jesus,as I said, pure conjecture but possible.
    Is it critical to my faith...No!


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I stand corrected. It is indeed Acts 5.
    It would be foolish ( at least in my opinion) to not think that Gamaliel heard Jesus. We do know that the Pharisees regularly went to hear Him speak.
    With regards the missing letters by Paul and his hearing Jesus,as I said, pure conjecture but possible.
    Is it critical to my faith...No!
    We know that he was regularly heard by Pharisees. But we have no reason to think that Gamaliel was one of them and, since Gamaliel was mostly in Jerusalem and Jesus mostly wasn't, on the whole it seems more likely not. It's not as if there were a shortage of Pharisees in Palestine at the time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40 Lamentabli sane


    St John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994):

    "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of Our ministry of confirming the brethren. We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

    Roma locuta; causa finita est. (:


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    St John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994):

    Roma locuta; causa finita est. (:

    You hear that, folks? You'll all go to hell for talking about it.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    feargale wrote: »
    You hear that, folks? You'll all go to hell for talking about it.

    Its OK...they're not talking about us....we're "apostates":D


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    Its OK...they're not talking about us....we're "apostates":D

    We could be lucky. We could get away with a belt of an ould crozier.


Advertisement