Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[John V]

Of course.

Ok, just making sure you applied this belief to yourself before anyone else.

Your questioning shows the need for this thread. Paul spends a good bit of it showing that everyone is guilty before god, and goes on to say that Christians continue to sin even after salvation. This should be common knowledge to those who say they know the Bible.

[John V]

Bullshit. Assholes are frequently treated without love and mercy. Christians are not mistreated on this forum simply for being Christian, but for making hostile, bigoted, or incorrect (often magical!) arguments that they will not support other than to say we can't disprove the magic is real (even when we can).

So even you admit to being unloving and unmerciful.

You will find that if you don't come here treating us like enemies, you will not be treated like an enemy.

Check the definition of mercy:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mercy?s=t
1. compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power; compassion, pity, or benevolence:

So, again, you admit you're not merciful.

Jesus noted that everyone is good to their friends. Big deal.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Bullshit. Assholes are frequently treated without love and mercy. Christians are not mistreated on this forum simply for being Christian, but for making hostile, bigoted, or incorrect (often magical!) arguments that they will not support other than to say we can't disprove the magic is real (even when we can).

So even you admit to being unloving and unmerciful.

You will find that if you don't come here treating us like enemies, you will not be treated like an enemy.

Check the definition of mercy:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mercy?s=t
1. compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power; compassion, pity, or benevolence:

So, again, you admit you're not merciful.

Jesus noted that everyone is good to their friends. Big deal.

Are you naturally this dishonest, or do you work at it?

When someone attacks me, I defend myself. If they hold a different ideological stance, but are kind and intellectually honest, then I treat my opponents as I would want to be treated, with honor and respect.

The definition you cited has to do with not harming someone you have captured or otherwise could do harm to but choose not to--thus the examples of an offender (a common word for felon or prisoner), an enemy (prisoner of war), or anyone else in one's power.

As I said, and keep saying, if you come in here acting like an asshole, you're going to get treated like an asshole. However, the fact that you're even still here and talking to us, and not banned, shows that we have a great deal more forbearance than we would be able to expect at Christian forums, by far! We only ban you if you are abusive or spammy, disruptive of the board. 

The very fact that you think that us criticizing your ideas and telling you that you're an idiot after you say idiotic things equates to a lack of mercy tells me a lot about your psychology.

None of it is flattering.

[Drich]

I actually agree with that analysis completely, except for one small quibble: Paul/Saul of Tarsus was himself a Roman citizen (if I recall correctly, the speculation is that he was made a citizen rather than born one), in addition to his other identities. He himself represented the bridge between the three cultures: Greek (Tarsus was a Greek city/culture under Roman rule), Hebrew, and Roman. At different times, he refers to himself by each of those identities, to make points about the combination of values among those three distinct civilizations to form his own set,

Hence the term, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

loosely based on the alleged teachings of Jesus the Messiah

That's the thing, what Jesus taught was freedom. Freedom from legalism, freedom from the bondage and chains the religious leaders of his day placed on the people. Freedom to Worship God with all of your being, no matter what that looked like, and freedom to love your neighbor as yourself.
Paul simply put the practical application of all of this freedom to work in the church. and if you study his works this freedom does not come in one singular set of rules but rather he set rules according to what people in a given region could handle.

(many have noted the difference between Paulianity, as we call it, and Christianity, in the messaging, though as you note it may simply stem from the fact that the writings of Paul are for a specific purpose in guiding/admonishing the behavior of the churches, rather than Jesus the Christ's more general message).

In order for this distinction to be valid, one needs to have the two teaching conflict in their base doctrine.

As to your lecture about "common believer is a saint", we know. That's why I listed "the communion of saints" (the community of the gathered body of the church) among the Apostles' Creed, when I mentioned the "core doctrines" of which we are aware.

Not all are, keep in mind I have to speak to everyone not just you.

And who, exactly, would have wanted to kill Paul (outside of Jerusalem, I suppose) for making the declaration found in the first six verses of Romans? Particularly given that he was writing to people in Rome. I'm sorry, but I just don't see a lot of danger in that bold statement. Was it a shocking departure from the Jewish beliefs of the time? Well, yeah, since you couldn't even say the name of God without getting stoned! But it's hardly a death sentence for him to write about believing that the Davidic Messiah had come in the form of the man called Jesus, even in Jerusalem. Athronges, Theudas (Acts 5:36), and Judas Maccabeus were all considered Messiahs by some (or claimed to be, themselves), and were not killed by the Jews for saying so. Indeed, in Acts 5, even the Christian writers refer to Gamaliel's appeal to his fellow Sanhedrin to treat the Christian claims as equal to the other failed, false Messiahs from before, rather than doing them real harm, even as the Christians were being expelled from Jerusalem.

It was commonly believed that the messiah was deliver the jewish people from the Roman authority, and at the time (After jesus before the destruction of the temple) tensions between jews and the romans were high. The romans sought any means to keep the jews under control, and the new christians (who were still considered to be jews by much of rome) were (leadership not the followers at that time) were targets for the Jews and the romans. Which is why Paul was imprisioned so many times beaten and stoned, and ultimatly imprisoned by rome/nero and executed/beheaded.

So if literal flogging, prision, stoning, and being beheaded is not to be considered 'dangerous' by you then on that note I will have to conceed to your point.

[GrandizerII]

Ok, just making sure you applied this belief to yourself before anyone else.

Your questioning shows the need for this thread. Paul spends a good bit of it showing that everyone is guilty before god, and goes on to say that Christians continue to sin even after salvation. This should be common knowledge to those who say they know the Bible.

Nah, I'm well aware of the evangelical view of the Gospel. I just wanted to see you judge yourself first before others.

[Drich]

I actually agree with that analysis completely, except for one small quibble: Paul/Saul of Tarsus was himself a Roman citizen (if I recall correctly, the speculation is that he was made a citizen rather than born one), in addition to his other identities. He himself represented the bridge between the three cultures: Greek (Tarsus was a Greek city/culture under Roman rule), Hebrew, and Roman. At different times, he refers to himself by each of those identities, to make points about the combination of values among those three distinct civilizations to form his own set,

Hence the term, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

loosely based on the alleged teachings of Jesus the Messiah

That's the thing, what Jesus taught was freedom. Freedom from legalism, freedom from the bondage and chains the religious leaders of his day placed on the people. Freedom to Worship God with all of your being, no matter what that looked like, and freedom to love your neighbor as yourself.
Paul simply put the practical application of all of this freedom to work in the church. and if you study his works this freedom does not come in one singular set of rules but rather he set rules according to what people in a given region could handle.

(many have noted the difference between Paulianity, as we call it, and Christianity, in the messaging, though as you note it may simply stem from the fact that the writings of Paul are for a specific purpose in guiding/admonishing the behavior of the churches, rather than Jesus the Christ's more general message).

In order for this distinction to be valid, one needs to have the two teaching conflict in their base doctrine.

As to your lecture about "common believer is a saint", we know. That's why I listed "the communion of saints" (the community of the gathered body of the church) among the Apostles' Creed, when I mentioned the "core doctrines" of which we are aware.

Not all are, keep in mind I have to speak to everyone not just you.

And who, exactly, would have wanted to kill Paul (outside of Jerusalem, I suppose) for making the declaration found in the first six verses of Romans? Particularly given that he was writing to people in Rome. I'm sorry, but I just don't see a lot of danger in that bold statement. Was it a shocking departure from the Jewish beliefs of the time? Well, yeah, since you couldn't even say the name of God without getting stoned! But it's hardly a death sentence for him to write about believing that the Davidic Messiah had come in the form of the man called Jesus, even in Jerusalem. Athronges, Theudas (Acts 5:36), and Judas Maccabeus were all considered Messiahs by some (or claimed to be, themselves), and were not killed by the Jews for saying so. Indeed, in Acts 5, even the Christian writers refer to Gamaliel's appeal to his fellow Sanhedrin to treat the Christian claims as equal to the other failed, false Messiahs from before, rather than doing them real harm, even as the Christians were being expelled from Jerusalem.

It was commonly believed that the messiah was deliver the jewish people from the Roman authority, and at the time (After jesus before the destruction of the temple) tensions between jews and the romans were high. The romans sought any means to keep the jews under control, and the new christians (who were still considered to be jews by much of rome) were (leadership not the followers at that time) were targets for the Jews and the romans. Which is why Paul was imprisioned so many times beaten and stoned, and ultimatly imprisoned by rome/nero and executed/beheaded.

So if literal flogging, prison, stoning, and being beheaded is not to be considered 'dangerous' by you then on that note I will have to conceed to your point.

[Drich]

So.. Your not familiar with the terms "clinical death" and Resuscitation? Because both are well documented.

Ok, and? That makes them all Sons of God declared with power through resurrection?

That proves the under a different name "resurection" exists even under our own power.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

It was commonly believed that the messiah was deliver the jewish people from the Roman authority, and at the time (After jesus before the destruction of the temple) tensions between jews and the romans were high. The romans sought any means to keep the jews under control, and the new christians (who were still considered to be jews by much of rome) were (leadership not the followers at that time) were targets for the Jews and the romans. Which is why Paul was imprisioned so many times beaten and stoned, and ultimatly imprisoned by rome/nero and executed/beheaded.

So if literal flogging, prison, stoning, and being beheaded is not to be considered 'dangerous' by you then on that note I will have to conceed to your point.

I have no complaints about the majority of your reply except for this bit, and only because it's a red herring that doesn't address the original question. You're quite right about the tension between the Romans and the Jews, but that still doesn't make Paul's statements in the epistles, circa 45 CE, automatically or inherently dangerous to him, let alone a "death sentence". We certainly have evidence that, 20 years later, the Christians were being persecuted in places like Rome, on the orders of Emperor Nero who sought to blame their minority for his own actions as a political distraction... many, many Christians were executed in that decade by Nero's orders. 

But that doesn't point to him being in danger from the Romans when he wrote that, nor of the Jews outside the centers of their power in Jerusalem. The Romans were actually known for their tolerance of "wrong" religions that came in from the border provinces, and allowed free practice thereof, so long as you accepted Roman rule. That's why Tacitus makes a derogatory comment about religions coming to Rome to "find their centre", when he is describing the deaths of the Christians Nero had murdered-by-trial.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind". - Annals of Tacitus, 15:44

(Emphasis mine, of course.)

[John V]

Are you naturally this dishonest, or do you work at it?

Is this an example of your great love and mercy?

[Drich]

I must have missed the verse that mentioned God having a defibrillator with manual settings up to 360 joules.

Modern medicine, magic, it's all the same thing really.

That's my point!

Maybe, God is not magic IF we can understand HOW He does what He does. God was only 'magic' to those who did not understand how He accomplished what He accomplished.

Nothing in the bible says God as to be 'magic' we only ever thought of Him that way because we did not understand. Now that we understand more what makes us think God has to remain in the realm of the supernatural when He is the creator of the natural!