Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Drich - Now is not the time to start pretending you give a shit about logical fallacies and intellectual integrity!

Does it make you feel powerful to talk like that to people? It just strikes me as sad.

Then maybe you should clean up your own condsending rants when you think it is your turn to take a victory lap.

The word is condescending. I don't know what a "victory lap" is, but I suspect you meant to say that I tend to laugh at someone who presents magic as real and doubts science is real... which is true. They earn their mockery.

honestly rocket, what do you do with all the logical fallacies I am point out in your reasoning here? You guys are so hypocritical, in that you want to hold God and His followers to the 'rules of logic and reasoning,' but when it suits you you leave logic and reasoning behind, and when you are called on it you scream foul!

Whatever, dude. I have never seen you point to a logical fallacy I have actually committed. I have seen you point to what you think are errors in interpretation and/or logic, but never to a fallacy of mine. Your assertions of the "argument from authority" are a joke; we do not use their arguments because they are authorities, but because of the scholarly consensus that they represent, and because we have reviewed their arguments and find them persuasive, just as you accept or rejection various experts in the field based on your own analysis of their arguments. You have said nothing here except to put more intelligent phrasing on the term "book-smart fools". It's hard to take you seriously when you do that.

outside of fundamentalist circles (where they start out with the prejudiced notion that they cannot accept any conclusion that goes against their particular ideas about the literal meaning of the Biblical texts, as presented, and will always try to take the earliest possible date for books), the overwhelming scholarly consensus is in accord with what Ehrman teaches. If you think the reason I appeal to him is only because he is an expert, then you have never read another post of mine outside of your own threads.

Again Your expert cites Acts 17:28-30 as 'proof' that the Paul of Acts is not the Paul of Romans Because in Acts 17:27-30 Paul gives a 'pass' to the pagans by saying:"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked" He is framing this to mean 'these times' meaning NT. which is in constrast to the Responsiablity and call to repentance of everyone in 'these times' Paul makes in Romans. well, again if one reads Acts 17: 28-31 "these times clearly are framed to mean OT times "but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained." which again is inline with what is taught through out the book of Romans.

If the passage he used to frame his arguement that Paul of Acts is not the Paul of Romans has been used outside of it's original context then one can only conclude your 'expert' is wrong because he is ignorant of what he speaks or is intentionally dishonest with his subject matter. eitherway his testimony on the matter can be logically dismissed. Regaurdless of how precious he is to you.

To continue to value his word after his works have been discredited because they donot properly frame or reflect the context of the biblical passages he is supposedly quoting from, is a logical fallacy/arguement from authority. Because yoou are placing one's authority as an 'expert' over content.

The words are "responsibility", "regardless", and "argument". (I'm assuming "constrast" is simply a typo.)

Are you deliberately misrepresenting Ehrman's position, or is it just out of ignorance? Keep in mind, I disagree with several of Ehrman's positions (particularly on the implications of the book of James and the reliability of the Tacitus account), so he's hardly "precious to" me. Try re-reading Ehrman's analysis of that passage (he cites to Acts 17:23-31, not 28-30), on his blog:

Almost all of Paul’s evangelistic sermons mentioned in Acts are addressed to Jewish audiences.  This itself should strike us as odd, given Paul’s own repeated claim that his mission was to the Gentiles.  In any event, the most famous exception is his speech to a group of philosophers on the Areopagus in Athens (chapter 17).  Here Paul explains that the Jewish God is in fact the God of all, pagan and Jew alike, even though the pagans have been ignorant of him.  Paul’s understanding of pagan polytheism is reasonably clear here: pagans have simply not known that there is only One God, the creator of all, and can thus not be held accountable for failing to worship the one whom they have not known.  That is to say, since they have been ignorant of the true God, rather than willfully disobedient to him, he has overlooked their false religions until now.  With the coming of Jesus, though, he is calling all people to repent in preparation for the coming judgment (Acts 17:23-31).

Simply put, I do not think you have the character or integrity to waste my time doing more than laughing at you, or pointing out your most egregious errors (particularly, as tends to be my habit, when you make false claims about atheism or science, because while I don't give a crap about what you think of the answers, I don't want your self-important drivel to damage the minds of passers by), so this is all you get, pal.

You mean this is all you can give? Because up to this point your greatest critique was to disagree with me when you did not perceive Rome as a threat to Paul or Christianity, but since have gone silent on the matter.

Short memory, bub. I don't recall "going silent on the matter", but I do recall leaving that thread and ceasing to monitor it when I thought it had gone cold. Sometimes I do that. If you don't "reply" to me, I might miss something. *shrug*

I don't recall anything from that conversation but base assertions that the only reason people would do the things they did is if they really believed what they were saying was true, and I showed you why that was not factual. Your "response" (and I use that term loosely) was to challenge the motives of the people I cited, using the more-recent information we have about them, and saying that they had other motivations than the truth to do what they did... which is exactly what I think about Paul.

The fact that you think the people with the agenda must include Christian scholars as well as men like Dr. Ehrman, and that you can only make the claims you make by saying that everyone outside your own incestuous thought-circles in the world of fundamentalist "scholarship" is part of that agenda, is the simplest and most concise way I could have pointed out that you are full of crap--no in-depth reporting necessary to spot that one!--and is just plain sad.

The fact that you think what you wrote presents some sort of original challenge or novel argument, or in any other way constituted a valid position or objection, is so sad it just depresses me for you.

Don't be a fool, all men do what they do because of a greater agenda. Even if the agenda is to not have an agenda and to just complete random acts of kindness, that 'plan' is by definition their agenda. Maybe you should verify the definition of a word before you go off reservation with it.

Red herring. My point was not that people don't have agendas, but that you must assert an overarching plot, or even a coordinated agenda (a conspiracy, if you prefer), as the reason your personal interpretation of Paul's writings and historicity are not supported by most scholars outside of fundamentalist circles is proof that you have already lost before the conversation even begins. Now you're reduced to trying to insult us into taking you seriously. Sad, sad, sad.