(November 2, 2015 at 12:18 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Yes, by the way, I DO know that you take issue with Ehrman's very passage, which I cited above, because you have an interpretation that is different about the people to whom Paul was speaking. My point is, of course, that he does reference the very verse you claim he omits.
I revamped once i got more of his arguement.
Again it is very clear that Paul is drawing a contrast between 'the faithful' who happen to be pagan out of ignorance, and the EVIL who Paul identifies as "Evil Man" several times in Romans. Paul makes a provision and contrasts for the 'ignorant pagan' worshiping to the best of his ability verse the Evil Man of romans 1 that your 'expert' did not make. These nuances your 'expert' omited invalidate his claim that the Paul of Acts is teaching something different in Romans. Dispite what ever status and pedigree you wish award him with.
Up to this point both members of team rocket need to admit that neither of you wanted to look at the content of his claim, and only his status as a 'expert.' Which again is indeed an argument from authority.
