(October 29, 2015 at 11:00 am)alpha male Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 9:01 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: His point IS that because Paul believed it to the point of death, he must have believed what he wrote.

Exactly! You twisted this to:

"willingness to die" = must be true

If you were honest, you would have said:

"willingness to die" = person sincerely believes

The clear implication is that, if Paul believed sincerely what he claimed, then his claims must be legitimate, because he was committed enough to these beliefs to proclaim them in the face of potential (and actual) death.

So I feel the first version is accurate, from the point of view of someone claiming Paul had some deep insight that caused him to be willing to die for his belief. The second "sincerely believes" is simply my take on it, as a nonbeliever, in that I think lots of people sincerely believe they have deep insight into the nature and desires of God, usually because they think they have spoken to God directly, which cause them to be willing to die for those beliefs. I think Paul was either totally delusional, or else he managed to convince himself of these "truths" (no greater than the other great truths of a million other such prophets/teachers of religion, except for the fact that a lot of people have become convinced... this is no more evidence of Muhammad's actual conversation with Gabriel than it is of Paul's actual contact with Jesus by vision). 

As you point out, it need not necessarily be God that is the belief so sincere that it makes a person willing to die for that cause; it's just the specific type being discussed here. There is no effective difference between the two sayings above, when speaking with a person who thinks that Paul was willing to die because his claims really happened to him, and he sincerely held his beliefs in those events.

(October 29, 2015 at 11:20 am)Irrational Wrote: Paul was living quite a privileged life to be honest. Who exactly had the power and will to torture him at the time? The Romans didn't care back then, did they?

Paul was a wandering tent maker and a roman citizen in civil life. The only people that had the authority to detain a citizen had to do so under the authority of Rome. Paul even uses his status to circumvent a kangaroo court/trial in one instance, but could not escape capture and persecution by rome. Towards the end of his life Rome took a very hostile view against Christianity, and imprisioned, flogged, and executed Christians because they were viewed as enemies of the state, because most officals did not understand the religion fully, but feared the rapid growth. That is why ALL of the Apostles were eventually executed except John, who was banished to the prison Island of Patmos for the rest of his life. They all died in very bad ways as to serve as a warning to others.

That's actually a pretty accurate view of it. Kudos!

(October 29, 2015 at 7:40 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Drich it saddens me that your going to suffer for so long in the afterlife.  I don't want this but your so intent on making FSM angry, What can he really do?

Aye.... but Drippy deserves every moment of torment.

No one would die for a Christian lie.

So are we all ready for chapter 2?

(October 29, 2015 at 12:28 pm)Drich Wrote: Paul was a wandering tent maker and a roman citizen in civil life. The only people that had the authority to detain a citizen had to do so under the authority of Rome. Paul even uses his status to circumvent a kangaroo court/trial in one instance, but could not escape capture and persecution by rome. 

This too..is just another part of your myth.  Frankly, this part of the narrative buckles under it's own hilarity.

Paul was the greatest liar and BS'er since the crazy old coot Abraham.  He'll lie in a nanosecond in order to convince people of his BS.

1 Corinthians 9:22 (CEB) = "I act weak to the weak, so I can recruit the weak. I have become all things to all people, so I could save some by all possible means."

Romans 2 stands in direct contrast to the way most legalistic Christians think. (Christians who live strictly by the law, like the Jews of the OT did) obedience=righteousness/salvation/The right to stand before God in Heaven. Paul starting in Romans 2 is going to begin a sharp turn from that old way of doing things.


For in order their to be strict adhearance to the law their must be observation and judgement. It's interesting that Paul saw fit to include this message as part of his detailed Gospel account to the Romans. Remember when you read this, Paul originally made no distinction between chapter one and Chapter two, so in your mind let it all flow as one message. At the end of Chapter one Paul is telling us and identifying Sin and the people who love and justify their deeds rather than repent, and God's own personal feelings towards their actions. But, at the same time he tell us not to judge, because we are the same. Meaning we all sin.

Romans 2 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

what Paul is saying goes back to what Christ said, in the parable of the unmerciful servant and to the whole "Judge not lest you be judged, by using the same measure you use to judge others." And also to where Christ said to the Pharisees "You who is without sin cast the first stone."

In essence Judgement here is not the simple identification of sin, but what Paul is talking about is more along the lines of what Christ Identified. In that every form of judgment Christ identifies in his parables has a 'reaction' against the sinner. In essence a 'sentence' for the crime. Paul is telling us it is not our place to sentence the sinner/perscribe some reaction/action to be taken against the sinner. That is God's job, not ours.

This is one of the reasons I wanted examples of those who claim Christ and Paul taught two different doctrine.. Because Christ and Paul both tell us we must beware of the 'fruit' other's produce, that it is in their deeds/sin that we can identify believers, again not for the purpose of persecution, but how to approach people in relation to salvation.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you 10 always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God's will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you— 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine. 13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers,[c] that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians,[] both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

Here Paul express his desire to goto Rome. While Paul did finally goto Rome in his last days, He wasn't the one who directly seeded the church there. His people however did, and that is what this letter was all about. The establishment of the Gospel and subsequent need for a church/fellowship of believers in Rome. I found in Paul's writing before he offers a hard truth (like what he said in the above paragraph) he seems to like to first offer a carrot to show that he is not being judgemental because he can be. He seems to try and strike a balance between the harsh/sting of truth and at the same time he tries to show compassion/love. I think this was one of the reasons for this second greeting. (because of what follows.)

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded[b] as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically[c] uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code[] and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Essentially Paul is Speaking to the Circumcised Jew/Judaizer (Gentile converted to Jew then to Christian this was something Peter and a few others taught.) So many in his day thought they were special or held a special place in Heaven/Among other believers because they were circumcised. What Paul is saying here is that one who does his best to follow God's law, even if they were born without it (gentile/non jew) are found righteous, even before the circumcised believer who did all of the ceremonial stuff, and yet did not try and follow the Moral Law.

*Side note: in Jesus' day the Law was broken down into the Moral code, Social law, and Religious/ceremonial law. It was thought that to up hold the religious/ceremonial law was of supreme importance. Much like how society puts great emphasis on the moral code today. back then they did the same on the ceremonial law. Why? Because it was the religious law that made one 'clean'/righteous before God according to the tradition of that day. So to be counted as a circumcised jew supposedly made one 'better' because it followed the Pharisacial school of thought of righteousness. (Meaning to do the parts of the law people could observe.. kinda check list theology)

Paul in contrast to that way of thinking was shifting the paradigm to righteousness being defined by our actions/moral law, and then from that pushes us into a righteousness based on atonment offered by Christ and not our ability to keep the law.
In the up coming chapters not only will Paul establish this 'Morality Based righteousness' but will sow us that None of us not even he (Paul) himself could truly meet this morality measure of righteousness. That our only hope was to seek the righteousness of Christ for ourselves.

(October 29, 2015 at 3:23 pm)Drich Wrote: Essentially Paul is Speaking to the Circumcised Jew/Judaizer (Gentile converted to Jew then to Christian this was something Peter and a few others taught.)

Are you saying Peter and a few others were judaizers? Whose Peter?