(October 26, 2015 at 4:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote: In Carrier's excellent "On the Historicity of Jesus" he cites this comment about Romans:
Quote: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.
