(November 4, 2015 at 10:19 am)Drich Wrote: Stay on target, stay on target...
Their is a difference. I am quoting Romans and Acts 17 to show that Bart's arguement is critically flawed, because he wrongly assumes that the group in acts 17 and Romans 2 is the same as the evil men in romans 1. That "all Men are without excuse." When the Romans 1 text says Evil men are without excuse. Because their are two different groups being address here and not the 1 bart Er-ham says, that means everything based on bart's one group assumption is also wrong. (That the Paul of Acts is not the Paul of Romans)
No, no, no. What you're doing pretending to give us "lessons" in the meaning of the Epistle to the Romans. Trying to focus on just one narrow part of the argument while ignoring the overall arc (and claiming I am not "on target" when I keep to the overall narrative) is dishonest and disingenuous.
Your assertion that Ehrman (us as well) does not understand the Bible because he violates your sense of how to interpret Romans and Acts together is related to the overall point. From what I have read of Ehrman (I have read many of his articles, but not his books), he seems to be making a claim that if you take the total number of points made about Paul's views by Paul, and compare it to the pseudonymous (apocryphal/interpolated/pick-your-term) letters attributed to him and the accounts written of him by others, you can see there are some distinctions significant enough in totality to show that it's not a single picture. It is clear that others have drawn a caricature of the man which differs in measurable ways from his own self-description, enough to show that the legend had changed into a different personal philosophy, or that Paul's own philosophy was different from what others thought of him.
The odd distinction you are drawing is a mistake because it looks back at Paul from 2000 years later; if you look at it from the time he was writing, then he is saying that (like the Qur'an says) that people before that time had an excuse for those willing to act on their inherent evil and/or sinful natures, while "nowadays" others do not, because they have access to The Truth about God™ (which doesn't necessarily mean Christ, but of course Christ according to his followers came to give us specific instructions/guidance for good behavior, according to God, and his death absolves us of the debt to God for our sins as well). Calling them different groups, as you do, seems to be more than just splitting hairs.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
