Who's words are final? Jesus' or Paul's?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2ndGen said:
Who said anything about contradiction?

Matter of fact,if Jesus said the sky was red, then Paul would be the first to change his own beliefs and say “Ok, Jesus, from now on, as far as I’m concenred, the sky is no longer blue.”

But what about you, would you accept Jesus’ teaching or Paul’s teaching first?

Nobody ever said that they were in a debate, but just that Paul said one thing and Jesus came and revealed something else (not that Paul was wrong to believe that the sky was blue).

Again, my fault in “how” I asked the question.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are trying to ask. The two can’t contradict. Scripture can’t contradict scripture.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
rbarcia;3272354:
If the Holy Spirit says through Paul there is one Mediator, Jesus, , and Rome says there is a Mediatrix. Which is right.

They both are correct. Although your interpretation of mediator and mediatrix make them conflict with one another when they don’t.

Catechism of the Catholic Church pg.253 #970 Quotes

"Mary’s function as mother of men ( in paranthesis mine, Revelation 12:17 Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of HER OFFSPRING , THOSE WHO KEEP GOD’S COMMANDMENTS AND BEAR WITNESS TO JESUS.)
Click to expand...
IN NO WAY OBSCURES OR DIMINISHESTHIS UNIQUE MEDIATION OF CHRIST, BUT RATHER SHOWS ITS POWER.…flows forth fom the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends ENTIRELY ON IT, and draws its power from it.

You forgot to finish reading the text on Romes definition of mediatrix… you stopped at one word Mediatrix and drew a false conclusion. Don’t worry, your not the first to misquote Catholic teaching.

No harm done here, just to the ones that dont get to hear the full explanation from Rome, just yours. God willing maybe we can correct this next time.

To get a better grasp of this teaching, look into the communion of saints. for God is not God of the dead, but of the living, whether asleep or awake their all alive to God.

Isn’t that wonderful news that our past loved ones are still alive to God!!!

Peace be with you:)

Actually, I just looked it up in the dictionary (mediatrx). 😃

And yeah…I love to know what Protestants suspect…that our loved ones are in heaven praying for us (even folk we never met).

Pax.
Click to expand...
 
2ndGen said:
If Jesus said the sky is red and Paul said the sky is blue, who’s words would you believe?
Click to expand...
The point that 2ndGen is trying to make, and correct me if I am incorrect, is that would you believe Christ over a mere man…

Which makes no sense coming from a catholic because that is exactly the question that protestants ask when it comes to the differences in what the catholic church teaches and what protestants perceive Christ teaching. 🤷

Paul was blessed by having the Holy Spirit guiding him in his teaching so Paul would NEVER contadict Christ because the Holy Spirit would never lead Paul away from Christ.

This question is unfounded and ludicrous… Why it would be asked I am not sure…

2ndGen, what made you ask a question that focus’s on a question that has no answer? Christ and Paul would not contradict, why ask a question assuming they would?
2ndGen said:
Being that we are indoctrinated to believe that the sky is blue, would you be willing to completely throw away that belief if Jesus said something different thatn what your conditioning taught you?
Click to expand...
The words ‘blue’ or ‘red’ are human definitions for what we see. There is no way I can tell that the way I see red :mad: is the same way that you see it, nor can you say this about blue :rolleyes:. Why Christ would be sitting around talking about what color the sky is I have no idea, I think He had much bigger and better things to talk about… 🤷 But that’s not your point is it? Your point is whether we would choose Christ’s teaching over a human man’s… My answer, of course - without a doubt. But Paul would not contradict Christ, so the question you pose is moot.
2ndGen said:
Would you be willing to go against the convention of your peers to take Jesus’ words for something?
Click to expand...
I do many times a day… 😊
 
Trend:

Ths question for Catholics depends on how it refers to The Church.

For non-Catholics? It’s just unacceptable even as a question.

Point?

We have that something to help us in our unbelief.

That’s so comforting to me as a Catholic.
 
2ndGen said:
What makes you so sure that man’s definition of what red is, is more right than Jesus’ definition?

Isn’t Him just saying so enough to change “our” definitions of what red is?
Click to expand...
If this situation were ever perceived, I would suspect that there was an error in translation…
 
The OP is obviously fishing for a comparison of Christ’s words regarding what we have to do for salvation versus the Protestant interpretation of Paul that faith alone is sufficient. Don’t know why he didn’t just ask that in the first place.
 
geezerbob said:
The OP is obviously fishing for a comparison of Christ’s words regarding what we have to do for salvation versus the Protestant interpretation of Paul that faith alone is sufficient. Don’t know why he didn’t just ask that in the first place.
Click to expand...
Sorry G-Bob…the Protestant doctrine of salvation never entered my mind when I started this.

The OP (and I should know since I am he) wanted to see how any pains one would go through to just believe in Jesus’ words without question or need of proof.
 
2ndGen said:
LOL!

How can one mistranslate “the sky is red”?
Click to expand...
It would involve an extreme form of semantic broadening and narrowing (I actually looked it up becuase i thought they had fancier names…). For example, we find in the Douay-Rheims and KJV that “meat” means “food”. So “meat” has “narrowed” in meaning from referring to all food to a more-specific type of food. If “red” used to mean “red”, but then broadened to mean “colour”, but then later narrowed to mean “blue”, then we would probably still have the old translation, but would then have to interpret it in order to comprehend it. Yes, highly unlikely for that sequence to occur while the rest of the language changes so little so as to remain the same language, but i’m having fun with this scenario.

It actually works better with a translation, since there are languages which do not differentiate between certain colours, for example, blue and green, or red and orange. However, since red and blue are both primary colours, it seems to me that it would be difficult to make that error. So, it would be much easier to get “the sky is green” than “the sky is red”…
…who started this thread? is there a point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top