Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I don't have a problem with this thread. He kept saying we don't understand it, and is now attempting to explain to us what he thinks we don't understand. We've claimed we DO understand. Thus, this thread is a logical extension of that disagreement.

It's admirable that he would take the time to explain all this to us, rather than just repeating the same "you atheists just don't understand" over and over.

That said, I will be SHOCKED if I actually learn anything from this thread. But I'm willing to wait and see.

I'll be driving back to St. Louis in about half an hour, for the rest of the day, so I won't be able to participate until tonight... but I look forward to seeing what develops.

Good luck to you, Drich.

[GrandizerII]

I don't have a problem with this thread. He kept saying we don't understand it, and is now attempting to explain to us what he thinks we don't understand. We've claimed we DO understand. Thus, this thread is a logical extension of that disagreement.

It's admirable that he would take the time to explain all this to us, rather than just repeating the same "you atheists just don't understand" over and over.

The implication is still there, though.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Well, my appointment at the MRI clinic just got postponed until tomorrow, so I'm free for the day after all. Now I need to figure out if I'm going to do actual work, today. Hard to pick up a project mid-day like this. Grumble, grumble.

[RoadRunner79]

In Carrier's excellent "On the Historicity of Jesus" he cites this comment about Romans:

2. The Peculiar Indifference of Paul and his Christians

As a psychologist once put it (about Paul's letter to fellow congregants in
Rome, whom he had not yet met and thus can't have shared his own stories
with):

Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a twenty-page
letter passionately wanting to share her excitement about a new teacher.
This letter has only one topic, your friend's new teacher. [But] at the end
of her letter, you still do not know one thing about her teacher. Yet, Paul
presents the central figure of his theology this way . . . . It [seems] impossible
to imagine how Paul could avoid telling one story or parable of--or
fail I to note one physical trait or personal quality of-Jesus. 8


8. Billy Wheaton and Joy Fuller, Hooks and Ladders: A Journey on a Bridge to
Nowhere with American Evangelical Christians (Bloomington, IN: Universe, 2009),
p. 31

I included the footnote for the citation because, unlike your silly-assed bible, Dr. Carrier provides his sources.

I think that your author here misunderstands the intent of the letter and thus comes to an incorrect conclusion.  Rome was an established church. Paul's letter is to introduce , and establish himself as one of the Apostles, before his intension to visit.  It deals with application not history.  I believe that it may be comprehensive (establishing what they already know, and verifying that Paul teaches the same Gospel they have already received).  As well, I think that Paul wishes that as an Apostle he has something to offer and to teach.

[Drich]

Quick note... In the Greek/Paul's letter their weren't any Chapter and verse notations, when we read this don't think that the Chapter and verse notation shows us when and where an Idea begins and ends. Also the Bible verses will be in Bold type.

Romans 1:

Paul, a servant[a]

The word here for servant is also Translated Slave. it is the greek word dulos,

of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David[b] according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,

 This is all pretty standard fare now, but was a bit of a revelation then, and could be a death sentence if proclaimed in front of the wrong people. To put this in writing was to mean Paul was staking his life on what he believed. Paul by example, was willing to speak the unspeakable right out of the gate which then lent to the authenticity/Showed he believed his message to the readers in Rome, at the time.

7 To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
To be a saint is to be a common believer in context here.


Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 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,[d] 

The idea behind this word is 'non greeks' were considered barbarians, like all non jews were considered gentiles, but in a mocking way. The term 'Barbarian' is from the greek barbarous which 'bar bar' sound repeating itself was supposed to emphasize the primitive unsophisticated nature of all non greek speaking people, and their cave man like form of communication. To acknoweledge  this Shows Paul is humble enough to put his own pedigree aside and honor the social higherarchy of the Romans, by refering to himself as a barbarous/barbarian. This would be a slap in the face to a high standing Jew. Paul does this so that later when He puts the Jew first it will be known that it is not out of personal standing but from a formal decree of God. Paul did not want people's own personal pride to stand in the way of them getting saved, so He sacrificed his own pride again right out front.

both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
The following highlights what the Gosple message actually is.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,[e] as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” The Easy to read version makes things a little more clear:
17 The Good News shows how God makes people right with himself. God’s way of making people right begins and ends with faith. As the Scriptures say, “The one who is right with God by faith will live forever
I point out the actual Gospel because most Christians can't scripturally speaking.
Now does this mean we must only live by faith? As we will find out in this study Faith is the key element in the initial start as a believer, and shortly after our expenditure of faith, we will be given a measure of the Holy Spirit as 'proof.'






[/b]

[GrandizerII]

Drich, a lot of us used to have that kind of understanding as former Christians. Do you really think this is news to many of us what you're saying?

[Drich]

Now take your answer and apply it to the defination of 'resurrection' which is to be brought back to life from the dead, and you have your answer is resurrection possible? Yes it is possible, it is a proven fact.

No, Drich, it's not a proven fact. Unless you label awakening from near death experiences as resurrection as well.

So.. Your not familiar with the terms "clinical death" and Resuscitation? Because both are well documented.

[Drich]

Drich, a lot of us used to have that kind of understanding as former Christians. Do you really think this is news to many of us what you're saying?

give it time. We are looking at a whole book of the bible/Paul's outline of the gospel which includes what a christian who uses the bible to define his faith should believe. This is vastly different from most/alot of denominational believe which in turn is vastly different that what you believe about denominational belief.

[dyresand]

Drich, a lot of us used to have that kind of understanding as former Christians. Do you really think this is news to many of us what you're saying?

give it time. We are looking at a whole book of the bible/Paul's outline of the gospel which includes what a christian who uses the bible to define his faith should believe. This is vastly different from most/alot of denominational believe which in turn is vastly different that what you believe about denominational belief.

But doesn't Paul doesn't  even matter since he didn't believe in a physical jesus?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I actually agree with that analysis completely, except for one small quibble: Paul/Saul of Tarsus was himself a Roman citizen (if I recall correctly, the speculation is that he was made a citizen rather than born one), in addition to his other identities. He himself represented the bridge between the three cultures: Greek (Tarsus was a Greek city/culture under Roman rule), Hebrew, and Roman. At different times, he refers to himself by each of those identities, to make points about the combination of values among those three distinct civilizations to form his own set, loosely based on the alleged teachings of Jesus the Messiah (many have noted the difference between Paulianity, as we call it, and Christianity, in the messaging, though as you note it may simply stem from the fact that the writings of Paul are for a specific purpose in guiding/admonishing the behavior of the churches, rather than Jesus the Christ's more general message).

As to your lecture about "common believer is a saint", we know. That's why I listed "the communion of saints" (the community of the gathered body of the church) among the Apostles' Creed, when I mentioned the "core doctrines" of which we are aware.

And who, exactly, would have wanted to kill Paul (outside of Jerusalem, I suppose) for making the declaration found in the first six verses of Romans? Particularly given that he was writing to people in Rome. I'm sorry, but I just don't see a lot of danger in that bold statement. Was it a shocking departure from the Jewish beliefs of the time? Well, yeah, since you couldn't even say the name of God without getting stoned! But it's hardly a death sentence for him to write about believing that the Davidic Messiah had come in the form of the man called Jesus, even in Jerusalem. Athronges, Theudas (Acts 5:36), and Judas Maccabeus were all considered Messiahs by some (or claimed to be, themselves), and were not killed by the Jews for saying so. Indeed, in Acts 5, even the Christian writers refer to Gamaliel's appeal to his fellow Sanhedrin to treat the Christian claims as equal to the other failed, false Messiahs from before, rather than doing them real harm, even as the Christians were being expelled from Jerusalem.