(July 30, 2012 at 10:46 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So now you're all about what you characterize as "common sense"...what happened to scripture?The two are not mutially exclusive terms. We are using scripture to establish common sense and a logical reason for the works of Paul.
Quote:Why would Paul need to evangelize to established believers, what a wonderful question. Why would he need to, why would they have the questions they apparently had in the frst place -what with being established believers (whatever the hell that means in the first place).It means nothing other than one has excepted the attonement offered by Christ. It says nothing as to how said believer is to live their life.
Quote:More importantly, why does he seem to be incapable of reminding them of the narratives which you assume they (and he) would have already been aware of?What are you talking about? He is constantly reminding these people of the gospel and of their faith. What the OP is arguing is not that Paul Never references the Gospel (Or I would shut this arguement down quickly with serveral references to the Gospel Paul makes.) The OP is saying Paul does not reference the very specific aspects of the gospel he has brought to lite. (Mary's name, the deatils of the resurrection, Pilate's name, Judas' betrayal etc..)
If you contend that Paul never references the Gospel read the opening chapters of galatians, The Book of Romans are littered with several references to the gospel and the sacerfice of Christ, The resurection, and the attonement of the sacerfice is well established for the forgiveness of sins.
