Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[SteveII]

First, Your rebuttal is predicated on our value to God depending on our obedience. That is completely false. 

Irrelevant, since I said no such thing and don't remotely need it.  What is it with batshit christers that they want to talk about anything other than the subject at hand.  We've got RR shitposting about some MIA argument from silence..we've got you musing over the dependencies of a god.I merely noted that any value that man has..in christian ideology...depends on the value god places.  On a set of prescribed action, on fealty, on faith.  I will repeat this point again...if you'd like to discuss your own contention, as I am..at any point.

No, see you said two different things and then declared them the same:

"I merely noted that any value that man has..in christian ideology...depends on the value god places." --That's pretty much my point all along.

"On a set of prescribed action, on fealty, on faith. " --God places value on these things. They are not the same as the intrinsic value of a human being and can easily be separate (or absent) with no effect. 

Second, show me where Greek or Roman philosophy even spoke about universal intrinsic value--let alone where that was actually part of anyone's worldview.

Enjoy.  

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value
First published Tue Oct 22, 2002; substantive revision Wed Dec 24, 2014
Intrinsic value has traditionally been thought to lie at the heart of ethics. Philosophers use a number of terms to refer to such value. The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic.
Many philosophers take intrinsic value to be crucial to a variety of moral judgments. For example, according to a fundamental form of consequentialism, whether an action is morally right or wronghas exclusively to do with whether its consequences are intrinsically better than those of any other action one can perform under the circumstances. Many other theories also hold that what it is right or wrong to do has at least in part to do with the intrinsic value of the consequences of the actions one can perform. Moreover, if, as is commonly believed, what one is morally responsible for doing is some function of the rightness or wrongness of what one does, then intrinsic value would seem relevant to judgments about responsibility, too. Intrinsic value is also often taken to be pertinent to judgments about moral justice (whether having to do with moral rights or moral desert), insofar as it is good that justice is done and bad that justice is denied, in ways that appear intimately tied tointrinsic value. Finally, it is typically thought that judgments about moral virtue and vice also turn on questions of intrinsic value, inasmuch as virtues are good, and vices bad, again in ways that appear closely connected to such value.
All four types of moral judgments have been the subject of discussion since the dawn of western philosophy in ancient Greece. The Greeks themselves were especially concerned with questions about virtue and vice, and the concept of intrinsic value may be found at work in their writings and in the writings of moral philosophers ever since. Despite this fact, and rather surprisingly, it is only within the last one hundred years or so that this concept has itself been the subject of sustained scrutiny, and even within this relatively brief period the scrutiny has waxed and waned.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/

More poigniantly.....this..

It is at this point that you will have arrived at intrinsic goodness (cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1094a). That which is intrinsically good is nonderivatively good; it is good for its own sake.

There is nothing about man..in either the judeo-christian or pauline theology..that is non-derivatively good, good for it's own sake.  Quite the opposite.  We are fallen.   You might be able to contend that following christ is good for it's own sake...or that god is good for it's own sake...but not man..nothing about man.  We must be redeemed through a transaction we had no party to...in order to receive grace that we do not deserve.  We exist in a divine melodrama of extrinsic goods and our task, which many will fail, is to secure them here in preparation for the hereafter.

Do you realize that none of the text you quoted has anything to do with humans having intrinsic value. The ancient philosophers were more interested in what made something good (moral questions). They did not believe in universal value of people. You cannot quote mine your way around that. 

Our value is entailed by the purpose/cause of our existence--not in any act we do/don't do nor any a posteriori action by God.