Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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.

Revising an argument is honorable. No flak from me on doing so.

It is my interpretation (remember, I agreed with much of what you think about Romans, so far) that Paul is referring to every person as "the evil man" you keep referencing, unless they have attained grace through salvation in Jesus Christ, and that even so we are still "sinners" (evildoers) at heart, just like all the other people who have not attained salvation. It is really clear to me that this is his intent in the book of Romans. Paul repeatedly referred to his own sinfulness. The difference is that, according to Paul, people who are not saved will continue to indulge in their evil, while Christians attempt to avoid it. It's really not a complicated theological point (that you think we're all missing, here).

However, it does not follow  that Ehrman gets it wrong when he points out the discrepancies in the way the writers of Acts cite Paul versus how Paul cites himself, based on your word-slicing efforts in an attempt to reconcile the two passages. 

Since you base your entire critique of Ehrman (so far) on the fact that 1) you think we're in love with him, rather than simply citing him as a mainstream Biblical historian who happens to be an atheist, and 2) that you have an interpretation you think is not supported by his work, so HE must be the one who is wrong, I feel pretty comfortable listening to him and not you, thus far.

Keep in mind, again, that I obviously am ready to agree with you when you make a point that is valid. As I said, I agree with at least 90% of what you have read into Romans, so far, at least as far as agreeing that that's what Paul meant when he wrote the book. I'm not simply disagreeing with you out of spite, nor belittling you for your position. What I am doing is mocking you endlessly when you get smug about calling us intellectually bankrupt, etc., or suggesting that a tenured professor of religious studies doesn't know the Bible better than you do (or I do).