(November 4, 2015 at 10:48 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: 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.Nice try but no. When irrational first brought this up I address the whole arch. Irrational seemed to think he had his best shot of defeating me with the one aspect of er-ham's argument. so we when on ad naussium here, then you chimed in two or three posts in. If you want to discuss the rest of the arch go back and address what i had to say. I am not setting the pace here as this is not topical to my post. so if we are focused on this, it is because someone thinks this arguemnt has the best shot of winning this argument.
Quote: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.And I believe Er-ham fails here as well, because Paul himself only 'self describes' relevant parts of himself to whom he is teaching. So to say The Paul of romans seems different than the Paul of Acts is observant, because He Is Different!
1 cor 9:
19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[c] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[d] but under law toward Christ[e]), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as[f] weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.
He is different because that is how he taught all the different people he approached, not because of er-ham's reasoning. Luke (the Author of Acts) saw Paul from a 3rd person perspective. He saw 'the man behind the curtain' as well as 'The great Oz' while Paul in his letters only showed 'Oz' in one form or another.
So again er-Ham fails because he does not reconcile this fact with Paul's own revealed nature. Er-ham can't seem to put together that the man behind the curtain and "Oz the great" are the same being.
Quote: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.Again, Paul is working off the principle of judgement Christ establishes in the parable of the talents. "We are judged based not on our ability to acheave a perfect sinless standard, but on what God gives us." Paul is saying in Acts 17 that God does not count the worship of idols that the ignorant men were doing in OT times as evil, because God did not give them the tools or understanding they needed to properly worship him, they will not be judged according to the "thou shalt not have anyother God's before me command." On the other hand now in NT times When men do this and know the gospel, it is counted as evil.
If this is splitting hairs, then know the hair was split by Paul, and not me. maybe because it is too fine of a point that er-ham misses it.
