Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Drich]

Drich - Now is not the time to start pretending you give a shit about logical fallacies and intellectual integrity!

Does it make you feel powerful to talk like that to people? It just strikes me as sad.

Then maybe you should clean up your own condsending rants when you think it is your turn to take a victory lap.

As others have explained to you, already, Ehrman is far, far from the only top-level expert who agrees with that position;

And As I Said To Others: Post their work and lets judge what they have to say based not on what you think of them as a person/expert but on content. Otherwise this is an appeal to authority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

honestly rocket, what do you do with all the logical fallacies I am point out in your reasoning here? You guys are so hypocritical, in that you want to hold God and His followers to the 'rules of logic and reasoning,' but when it suits you you leave logic and reasoning behind, and when you are called on it you scream foul!

outside of fundamentalist circles (where they start out with the prejudiced notion that they cannot accept any conclusion that goes against their particular ideas about the literal meaning of the Biblical texts, as presented, and will always try to take the earliest possible date for books), the overwhelming scholarly consensus is in accord with what Ehrman teaches. If you think the reason I appeal to him is only because he is an expert, then you have never read another post of mine outside of your own threads.

Again Your expert cites Acts 17:28-30 as 'proof' that the Paul of Acts is not the Paul of Romans Because in Acts 17:27-30 Paul gives a 'pass' to the pagans by saying:"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked" He is framing this to mean 'these times' meaning NT. which is in constrast to the Responsiablity and call to repentance of everyone in 'these times' Paul makes in Romans. well, again if one reads Acts 17: 28-31 "these times clearly are framed to mean OT times "but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained." which again is inline with what is taught through out the book of Romans.

If the passage he used to frame his arguement that Paul of Acts is not the Paul of Romans has been used outside of it's original context then one can only conclude your 'expert' is wrong because he is ignorant of what he speaks or is intentionally dishonest with his subject matter. eitherway his testimony on the matter can be logically dismissed. Regaurdless of how precious he is to you.

To continue to value his word after his works have been discredited because they donot properly frame or reflect the context of the biblical passages he is supposedly quoting from, is a logical fallacy/arguement from authority. Because yoou are placing one's authority as an 'expert' over content.

You have made a poor case, and sneering at the top experts while you present your poor case doesn't help.

Then again someone as smart as you can easily take your expert's work and show me where I am wrong and would not have to just try a general dismissal based on an ad hom attack.

If I thought that you'd be honest about any discussion that would ensue between us over the subject, I'd be glad to go into it with you... but I have already seen how much you just enjoy slinging accusations at us while dodging the same hard questions, yourself, because you don't believe anything we say, or believe in our good intentions, either.

What hard questions? I have answer EVERY SINGLE QUESTION Asked of me in this thread!
You are Speaking to generalities that do not even apply to this coonversation.

Simply put, I do not think you have the character or integrity to waste my time doing more than laughing at you, or pointing out your most egregious errors (particularly, as tends to be my habit, when you make false claims about atheism or science, because while I don't give a crap about what you think of the answers, I don't want your self-important drivel to damage the minds of passers by), so this is all you get, pal.

You mean this is all you can give? Because up to this point your greatest critique was to disagree with me when you did not perceive Rome as a threat to Paul or Christianity, but since have gone silent on the matter.

The fact that you think the people with the agenda must include Christian scholars as well as men like Dr. Ehrman, and that you can only make the claims you make by saying that everyone outside your own incestuous thought-circles in the world of fundamentalist "scholarship" is part of that agenda, is the simplest and most concise way I could have pointed out that you are full of crap--no in-depth reporting necessary to spot that one!--and is just plain sad.

The fact that you think what you wrote presents some sort of original challenge or novel argument, or in any other way constituted a valid position or objection, is so sad it just depresses me for you.

Don't be a fool, all men do what they do because of a greater agenda. Even if the agenda is to not have an agenda and to just complete random acts of kindness, that 'plan' is by definition their agenda. Maybe you should verify the definition of a word before you go off reservation with it.

[Drich]

You would think, that a few of you would see the benefit of the study in Romans I was doing for the atheist side of most Christian/atheist arguments, and wouldn't care about trying to invalidate Paul or his contributions. Why?

Because this study in Romans undermines MOST if not all versions of Christianity that hold to strict rules or "extra" absolution/attrition for sin. If you guys put any thought into this at all you'd be asking yourself why you can find so many theists who try and undermine or minimalize the works of Paul. The book of Romans is that up discussed reason. This book puts many of the largest denominational doctrines out of business/in direct violation with biblical Christianity.

I would have though more of you would want me to get you through this book so you could us the bible to try and show some of our more legalistlicy confused brothers how their religion is In Direct contradiction to the bible.

Actually, most of us tend to think that Christians heavily over-emphasize  Paul, from what I've seen written here. 

(I happen to agree with this analysis.)

Atheist Knowledge Fail™, again!

When talking about the inner working of the church, Paul is the goto because He is the one who give the church logistical direction. Christ taught NT principles, Paul implimented them in the social church/religious structure. When discussing church matters we have no other source material to reference other than Paul.

[Hmmm?]

You would think, that a few of you would see the benefit of the study in Romans I was doing for the atheist side of most Christian/atheist arguments, and wouldn't care about trying to invalidate Paul or his contributions. Why?

Because this study in Romans undermines MOST if not all versions of Christianity that hold to strict rules or "extra" absolution/attrition for sin. If you guys put any thought into this at all you'd be asking yourself why you can find so many theists who try and undermine or minimalize the works of Paul. The book of Romans is that up discussed reason. This book puts many of the largest denominational doctrines out of business/in direct violation with biblical Christianity.

I would have though more of you would want me to get you through this book so you could us the bible to try and show some of our more legalistlicy confused brothers how their religion is In Direct contradiction to the bible.

As an independent fundamental Baptist I can assure you that although the verses you are pointing toward to free us "confused legalists" from our chains of bondage, it is actually our beloved brother Paul that has given us the doctrine for which we do the things we do.

(Perhaps take the time to go to any fundamental church website and read their article of faith to find out why we believe what we believe and the verses we use to justify those beliefs)

Here are a few verses to ponder;  1Co 5:5, 11, 13;  2Co 6:14, 17, 10:6; Gal 1:8; Eph 5:11; 2Th 1:6-8, 3:14; 1Ti 1:20, 2:14, 5:20, 6:5; 2Ti 1:15, 2:17, 3:5, 4:2, 4:10, 4:14   ....Mt 9:11, 11:19; Mk 2:16, Lk 5:30, 7:34, 15:2, 19:7  ...Mt 16:11, Mk 8:15  ...Mt 7:1, Lk 6:37, 1Co 5:12.

Something that was very helpful to me was reading just the red letters in the 3 gospels 

...it actually doesn't take as long as you might think!

(You don't have to respond, I'm going to have to take a break from the forum as I am wasting too much time)

But be blessed, Drich, and smiles and blessings to all :•)  

We will overcome the ambiguity effect

[Drich]

I'd say we're more interested in how your religion contradicts reason, common sense, and decency on the whole rather than sniping at particular sects.

Baptist
Catholic
Protestant
Etc.

Different colored candy shells surrounding the same rich, creamy center of nonsense and special pleading.

This presupposes that I am saying my 'sect' is the right one.

If I am ever allowed to finish my Romans study we will see that ALL 'sects' are wrong. That none conform, that we are only saved because Christ wants to save us, not in the way of our own religious efforts so that none of us can boast about being the 'one true sect'... that what is said here in romans undermines ALL religious efforts, and makes salvation about the work of Christ and not about our works of religion.

This means out 'names' we award ourselves (Baptist, Catholic, Protestant) mean absolutly nothing to God. He judges who and what we are in relation to our ablities and what he has set before us.

That, is what I am speaking of when I say one can use what Paul says here to destroy an arguement/doctrine that says it is the one true church.

[Edwardo Piet]

If I am ever allowed to finish my Romans study we will see that ALL 'sects' are wrong.

Just like ALL of Christianity is wrong.

[Drich]

Drich,
I admit I didn't read all of this thread, but I did read about half of it. Who are you to talk down to us?

Who is us?
I 'rebuked' one member of 'team rocket.' (Which is a Poke'mon reference btw/they thought themselves real smart too) Or are you saying you all have elected the other member of team rocket as your unoffical champion, kinda like the atheist version of goliath? By me challenging him (or one of his team members appearently) I have challenged all of you 'unwashed philistinies?' Otherwise again, who is this 'we?'

You yourself have admitted that millions of Christians do not subscribe to your particular brand of Christianity.

Maybe you should read a little more. We are not talking about my brand of Christianity we are talking about the validity of a so called expert and his incorrect citation of Acts 17:27-30 to show a supposed contradiction in a teaching of Paul in the book of romans. This supposed contradiction is his 'proof' that the two were not the same because the teaching on the one subject is vastly differnt. When a simple contextual reading of Acts 17:27-31 reframes and changes the meaning of the whole passage he misquoted thus realigning the teaching in acts with the teaching in the book of romans. which invalidates this 'expert's' claim and every arguement he bases off this failed observation. Namly the late date he ascribes to the book of Luke and Acts.

None of which has ANYTHING to do with my version of Christianity. What made me call Team rocket out and 'rebuke' them was their blind insistence that because this man was an 'expert' his expert-ie-ness superceeds any other fact. Which i pointed out to be a logical fallacy "arguement from Authority." Now I'm being attacked personallly for not bowing at the alter of atheist 'experts.'

Blind faith can be apart of my religion, and we are slammed when we practice it. Yet blind faith is supposed to be the all the 'thinkers' of soceity abandoned religion. Yet here we have an example of 'blind faith' in what team rocket believes, and I (A supposed non-thinker) am the only one pointing it out?!?

Yet somehow, you seem to regularly ignore this fact and accuse US of not understanding your version of the scriptures.  Meanwhile, you even point out that Paul wasn't doing the work of Jesus and was rather self-promoting.  

Not Paul, Saul. Before he took the name Paul, Saul hunted down and killed Christians so as to gain the respect of the Sanhedrian.

Why should we even bother listening to someone like you after all that?

Maybe, 'you' shouldn't if you entire investment in this subject is limited to a single page of dialog.

 I would wager you couldn't get 10 men from your own church to universally agree on the interpretation of your bible.  Yet there you are, speaking from a self-proclaimed position of authority.    

Again, cinny we are talking about the Need (my position) of validating experts, and what they say, verses Blind faith in what they say if it is what you want to hear (team rocket's position) not my particular take on religion.

I mean come on ... Does your god really need you here in your smug self-righteousness trying to convince us that we don't understand your religion?  

You are the iceberg to your own Titanic man.  After awhile we don't even bother taking you seriously.  Common Sense 101

Just to show you I am not out looking for oppertunity to make you all look bad for the sake of doing it I won't point out how far off topic you are in a bad way. I'll just say if you want to be a deeper part of this discussion, read a few more pages.

[Drich]

Isn't it time to grow up and act rational? Let's say you quote an expert. I question the findings your go to guy talks about, your job, is not to say "nut-uh, my guys is right and you are a do doo head because you don't agree."

Dismissal is not questioning, Drich. I can post more links but you'll just "explain thier arguments away" as expected. I used to have a similar Christian mindset in the past, so I know it's futile to get into an honest scholarly discussion with you. Tried it recently with alpha_male, and he pretty much proved my suspicions.

And again, you keep pretending I only quoted one guy. It is the bloody consensus. Who am I, or who are you, to question the expert consensus without the required qualifications? If I were a scholar (even an amateur one), and I properly understood the scholarly consensus and am familiar with all the arguments they make defending that position, and through rigorous study of my own found their arguments to fall short of defending their position, then I can go and question them and provide a better position, but I need to first be at their level.

You still think it's not the consensus, go edit out the part I quoted from Wiki then ...

Are you so foolish to think their are not a panel of 'experts' that think the oppsite of what your panel thinks? Do you really think I am a lone wolf crying out in the wilderness alone? Do you REALLY Need to see a list of people who think the oppsite way?

Let's say for a moment both side bring up good points and let's say both side bring up Valid points. How then do you decide who is right?

Your unwillingness to look at what your 'expert' says critically tells me you by faith simply know he is right. Now may I ask is your 'faith' a strong part of your system of belief?

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh fuck Drich is everywhere, it's a one man plague.

[Cato]

Not Paul, Saul. Before he took the name Paul, Saul hunted down and killed Christians so as to gain the respect of the Sanhedrian.

Meaningless bullshit. This has the same intellectual argumentative strength as proclaiming Creationism to be true because Kirk Cameron self-reported his previous atheism.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Drich - Now is not the time to start pretending you give a shit about logical fallacies and intellectual integrity!

Does it make you feel powerful to talk like that to people? It just strikes me as sad.

Then maybe you should clean up your own condsending rants when you think it is your turn to take a victory lap.

The word is condescending. I don't know what a "victory lap" is, but I suspect you meant to say that I tend to laugh at someone who presents magic as real and doubts science is real... which is true. They earn their mockery.

honestly rocket, what do you do with all the logical fallacies I am point out in your reasoning here? You guys are so hypocritical, in that you want to hold God and His followers to the 'rules of logic and reasoning,' but when it suits you you leave logic and reasoning behind, and when you are called on it you scream foul!

Whatever, dude. I have never seen you point to a logical fallacy I have actually committed. I have seen you point to what you think are errors in interpretation and/or logic, but never to a fallacy of mine. Your assertions of the "argument from authority" are a joke; we do not use their arguments because they are authorities, but because of the scholarly consensus that they represent, and because we have reviewed their arguments and find them persuasive, just as you accept or rejection various experts in the field based on your own analysis of their arguments. You have said nothing here except to put more intelligent phrasing on the term "book-smart fools". It's hard to take you seriously when you do that.

outside of fundamentalist circles (where they start out with the prejudiced notion that they cannot accept any conclusion that goes against their particular ideas about the literal meaning of the Biblical texts, as presented, and will always try to take the earliest possible date for books), the overwhelming scholarly consensus is in accord with what Ehrman teaches. If you think the reason I appeal to him is only because he is an expert, then you have never read another post of mine outside of your own threads.

Again Your expert cites Acts 17:28-30 as 'proof' that the Paul of Acts is not the Paul of Romans Because in Acts 17:27-30 Paul gives a 'pass' to the pagans by saying:"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked" He is framing this to mean 'these times' meaning NT. which is in constrast to the Responsiablity and call to repentance of everyone in 'these times' Paul makes in Romans. well, again if one reads Acts 17: 28-31 "these times clearly are framed to mean OT times "but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained." which again is inline with what is taught through out the book of Romans.

If the passage he used to frame his arguement that Paul of Acts is not the Paul of Romans has been used outside of it's original context then one can only conclude your 'expert' is wrong because he is ignorant of what he speaks or is intentionally dishonest with his subject matter. eitherway his testimony on the matter can be logically dismissed. Regaurdless of how precious he is to you.

To continue to value his word after his works have been discredited because they donot properly frame or reflect the context of the biblical passages he is supposedly quoting from, is a logical fallacy/arguement from authority. Because yoou are placing one's authority as an 'expert' over content.

The words are "responsibility", "regardless", and "argument". (I'm assuming "constrast" is simply a typo.)

Are you deliberately misrepresenting Ehrman's position, or is it just out of ignorance? Keep in mind, I disagree with several of Ehrman's positions (particularly on the implications of the book of James and the reliability of the Tacitus account), so he's hardly "precious to" me. Try re-reading Ehrman's analysis of that passage (he cites to Acts 17:23-31, not 28-30), on his blog:

Almost all of Paul’s evangelistic sermons mentioned in Acts are addressed to Jewish audiences.  This itself should strike us as odd, given Paul’s own repeated claim that his mission was to the Gentiles.  In any event, the most famous exception is his speech to a group of philosophers on the Areopagus in Athens (chapter 17).  Here Paul explains that the Jewish God is in fact the God of all, pagan and Jew alike, even though the pagans have been ignorant of him.  Paul’s understanding of pagan polytheism is reasonably clear here: pagans have simply not known that there is only One God, the creator of all, and can thus not be held accountable for failing to worship the one whom they have not known.  That is to say, since they have been ignorant of the true God, rather than willfully disobedient to him, he has overlooked their false religions until now.  With the coming of Jesus, though, he is calling all people to repent in preparation for the coming judgment (Acts 17:23-31).

Simply put, I do not think you have the character or integrity to waste my time doing more than laughing at you, or pointing out your most egregious errors (particularly, as tends to be my habit, when you make false claims about atheism or science, because while I don't give a crap about what you think of the answers, I don't want your self-important drivel to damage the minds of passers by), so this is all you get, pal.

You mean this is all you can give? Because up to this point your greatest critique was to disagree with me when you did not perceive Rome as a threat to Paul or Christianity, but since have gone silent on the matter.

Short memory, bub. I don't recall "going silent on the matter", but I do recall leaving that thread and ceasing to monitor it when I thought it had gone cold. Sometimes I do that. If you don't "reply" to me, I might miss something. *shrug*

I don't recall anything from that conversation but base assertions that the only reason people would do the things they did is if they really believed what they were saying was true, and I showed you why that was not factual. Your "response" (and I use that term loosely) was to challenge the motives of the people I cited, using the more-recent information we have about them, and saying that they had other motivations than the truth to do what they did... which is exactly what I think about Paul.

The fact that you think the people with the agenda must include Christian scholars as well as men like Dr. Ehrman, and that you can only make the claims you make by saying that everyone outside your own incestuous thought-circles in the world of fundamentalist "scholarship" is part of that agenda, is the simplest and most concise way I could have pointed out that you are full of crap--no in-depth reporting necessary to spot that one!--and is just plain sad.

The fact that you think what you wrote presents some sort of original challenge or novel argument, or in any other way constituted a valid position or objection, is so sad it just depresses me for you.

Don't be a fool, all men do what they do because of a greater agenda. Even if the agenda is to not have an agenda and to just complete random acts of kindness, that 'plan' is by definition their agenda. Maybe you should verify the definition of a word before you go off reservation with it.

Red herring. My point was not that people don't have agendas, but that you must assert an overarching plot, or even a coordinated agenda (a conspiracy, if you prefer), as the reason your personal interpretation of Paul's writings and historicity are not supported by most scholars outside of fundamentalist circles is proof that you have already lost before the conversation even begins. Now you're reduced to trying to insult us into taking you seriously. Sad, sad, sad.