Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Drich]

Your expert is an idiot or hopes his followers are, in that they are not willing to look at the context in which he quotes.

What is bolded (by me) says more than enough about how Christians like you (which I used to be myself) think. There is that sort of arrogance whereby a Christian layman like Drich thinks he understands the Bible better than someone like Bart Ehrman who, very probably, has studied the Bible way more than Drich ever has, and he has words on paper to prove that he is an expert in the field.

Acts 17 shows a Paul that thinks in a different manner from the Paul of the Epistles (in this case, with regards to idolatry). Therein lies the contradiction. It's not about just this verse or that. According to Acts, pagans were ignorant of the true God. Romans 1 says otherwise: that they knew of the true God but actively rejected him in favor of other gods. Dismiss the contradiction all you want, but it's there. And it also isn't the only main difference anyway.

Also, you keep forgetting the majority of New Testament scholars disagree with you on your view regarding the date Acts was written and the comparisons between Acts' Paul and the Epistles' Paul. Bart Ehrman is just one number. You simply laughing them off does not wish them all of a sudden away.

Acts 17:
26 And He has made from one blood[c] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, 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. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Romans 1:
18 God shows his anger from heaven against all the evil and wrong things that people do. Their evil lives hide the truth they have. 19 This makes God angry because they have been shown what he is like. Yes, God has made it clear to them.
20 There are things about God that people cannot see—his eternal power and all that makes him God. But since the beginning of the world, those things have been easy for people to understand. They are made clear in what God has made. So people have no excuse for the evil they do.
21 People knew God, but they did not honor him as God, and they did not thank him. Their ideas were all useless. There was not one good thought left in their foolish minds. 22 They said they were wise, but they became fools. 23 Instead of honoring the divine greatness of God, who lives forever, they traded it for the worship of idols—things made to look like humans, who get sick and die, or like birds, animals, and snakes.
24 People wanted only to do evil. So God left them and let them go their sinful way. And so they became completely immoral and used their bodies in shameful ways with each other. 25 They traded the truth of God for a lie. They bowed down and worshiped the things God made instead of worshiping the God who made those things. He is the one who should be praised forever. Amen.
26 Because people did those things, God left them and let them do the shameful things they wanted to do. Women stopped having natural sex with men and started having sex with other women. 27 In the same way, men stopped having natural sex with women and began wanting each other all the time. Men did shameful things with other men, and in their bodies they received the punishment for those wrongs.
28 People did not think it was important to have a true knowledge of God. So God left them and allowed them to have their own worthless thinking. And so they do what they should not do. 29 They are filled with every kind of sin, evil, greed, and hatred. They are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, lying, and thinking the worst things about each other. They gossip 30 and say evil things about each other. They hate God. They are rude, proud, and brag about themselves. They invent ways of doing evil. They don’t obey their parents, 31 they are foolish, they don’t keep their promises, and they show no kindness or mercy to others. 32 They know God’s law says that anyone who lives like that should die. But they not only continue to do these things themselves, but they also encourage others who do them.

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

Your guy identifies Act's 17 to Paul's thoughts on Pre-NT pagan worship to have been over looked until now where they are called to repent.

Verse romans where they have been given over to their sins? (I don't have his completed work infront of me.) But i assume this is his sticking point.

Two big things Paul in the book of romans is not speaking to Pagan worshipers. Paul is speaking to all who embrace their evil (Which I have already pointed out in my chapter one study)

So what is the difference? If you look at the bold face type in the Acts 17 passage I highlighted (above) Paul is pointing to the devout pagan trying to live a good life and simply does not know of the one true God. So for him their was mercy in OT days, where as now He is called to repent.

In the Bold face type of romans your 'expert' has forced the identification of "pagan" to those Paul is speaking about because of the worship of Idols. This is a common practice because a 'pagan' is anyone worshiping outside the main religion. But the critical flaw in your expert's assessment here is the dynamic of "EVIL" that the Roman's group embraces that the Group Paul speaks about in Acts does not embrace. Remember "Evil" and sin are two different things. Sin being a violation of the expressed will of God/God's law. while Evil is  the embracing of one's sin. Paul to the Roman's crowd defines them and their works as evil, while the 'Pagans'/Non Jews looking to worship God in the ignorance are NOT cut from that same cloth as the Romans Group.

In short the Acts' group uses the same 'knoweledge' the Roman's group is privy to and does the best they can to worship their pagan idols (out of ignorance) in the OT. (In other words they see the signs Paul describes in romans and attributes them to their pagan Gods because they do not know any better.)

However The roman's group see these same signs and rather than turn to whatever understanding God gave them and tried to worship them like the act's group did they turned to Evil and embraced it despite what God had given them.

Your 'guy' fails to make that distinction, he "blind guide" assumes both are 'evil' because the first group is pagan. When according to Christ and the parable of the talents God does not judge us by a strict religious standard, but in accordance to what he has given us. The jew were given much so much was expected. the pagans not as much, but they too honored and 'double' what was given, while the romans group were given little, and rather than honor the little they were given they did what they wanted (Embracing evil) and God punishes them for it.

via Imgflip Meme Maker

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Yes, by the way, I DO know that you take issue with Ehrman's very passage, which I cited above, because you have an interpretation that is different about the people to whom Paul was speaking. My point is, of course, that he does reference the very verse you claim he omits.

Edit to Add: I like the fact that you "explain away" the disagreement with the theology presented in Acts vs. in Romans, not as writers who were and quoting Paul (in Acts, since of course Paul did not write Acts) versus what he wrote himself (Romans), but instead of seeing it as a difference between the two versions of Paul, you attribute it to... something else? Almost everyone considers the passage in Romans to refer to everyone who is not saved by grace and repentance, so it would certainly include all non-Christian groups. Your attempt to nit-pick on definitions fails utterly.

[Drich]

Yes, by the way, I DO know that you take issue with Ehrman's very passage, which I cited above, because you have an interpretation that is different about the people to whom Paul was speaking. My point is, of course, that he does reference the very verse you claim he omits.

I revamped once i got more of his arguement.


Again it is very clear that Paul is drawing a contrast between 'the faithful' who happen to be pagan out of ignorance, and the EVIL who Paul identifies as "Evil Man" several times in Romans. Paul makes a provision and contrasts for the 'ignorant pagan' worshiping to the best of his ability verse the Evil Man of romans 1 that your 'expert' did not make. These nuances your 'expert' omited invalidate his claim that the Paul of Acts is teaching something different in Romans. Dispite what ever status and pedigree you wish award him with.

Up to this point both members of team rocket need to admit that neither of you wanted to look at the content of his claim, and only his status as a 'expert.' Which again is indeed an argument from authority.

[Minimalist]

Again, this is a monkey see monkey do appeal to authority and an appeal to stone. (Google them if you don't know what they mean, don't just try and talk past these to logical fallacies I have identified in rocket/monkey doo(you) arguement.)

Use something your "expert" has said to refute my objection. Because clearly my time line objection can be the first. He must have encountered these objections when he first posited his conjecture/origins of acts.

Otherwise know you are conceding the arguement via logical fallacy as rocket man has poised himself to do.

I am honest enough to accept that experts in a certain field know more about that field than I do. You are not because you let your bias get the better of you. That's the difference.

Expert or not, it seems that everyone knows more than fucking drippy.

[Edwardo Piet]

Too much tedious debating going on for me today! I may need to create some more threads for some fun hmmmm....

TRS, do you have Skype? If you do and you wanna chat, feel free to PM me your Skype... I know that we got off on the wrong foot and actually when we first interacted on AF we had a bit of an argument... but I know we are both mature enough to see way past that and I don't know how you feel about me but you're actually one of my favourite members on AF now and your posts are awesome. And I can relate to your energy for debates because I was the same years ago... just after years and years daily it just felt like I was just banging my head on a wall over and over and I've really grown tired of it. I still admire the enthusiasm.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Yes, by the way, I DO know that you take issue with Ehrman's very passage, which I cited above, because you have an interpretation that is different about the people to whom Paul was speaking. My point is, of course, that he does reference the very verse you claim he omits.

I revamped once i got more of his arguement.

Again it is very clear that Paul is drawing a contrast between 'the faithful' who happen to be pagan out of ignorance, and the EVIL who Paul identifies as "Evil Man" several times in Romans. Paul makes a provision and contrasts for the 'ignorant pagan' worshiping to the best of his ability verse the Evil Man of romans 1 that your 'expert' did not make. These nuances your 'expert' omited invalidate his claim that the Paul of Acts is teaching something different in Romans. Dispite what ever status and pedigree you wish award him with.

Up to this point both members of team rocket need to admit that neither of you wanted to look at the content of his claim, and only his status as a 'expert.' Which again is indeed an argument from authority.

Revising an argument is honorable. No flak from me on doing so.

It is my interpretation (remember, I agreed with much of what you think about Romans, so far) that Paul is referring to every person as "the evil man" you keep referencing, unless they have attained grace through salvation in Jesus Christ, and that even so we are still "sinners" (evildoers) at heart, just like all the other people who have not attained salvation. It is really clear to me that this is his intent in the book of Romans. Paul repeatedly referred to his own sinfulness. The difference is that, according to Paul, people who are not saved will continue to indulge in their evil, while Christians attempt to avoid it. It's really not a complicated theological point (that you think we're all missing, here).

However, it does not follow  that Ehrman gets it wrong when he points out the discrepancies in the way the writers of Acts cite Paul versus how Paul cites himself, based on your word-slicing efforts in an attempt to reconcile the two passages. 

Since you base your entire critique of Ehrman (so far) on the fact that 1) you think we're in love with him, rather than simply citing him as a mainstream Biblical historian who happens to be an atheist, and 2) that you have an interpretation you think is not supported by his work, so HE must be the one who is wrong, I feel pretty comfortable listening to him and not you, thus far.

Keep in mind, again, that I obviously am ready to agree with you when you make a point that is valid. As I said, I agree with at least 90% of what you have read into Romans, so far, at least as far as agreeing that that's what Paul meant when he wrote the book. I'm not simply disagreeing with you out of spite, nor belittling you for your position. What I am doing is mocking you endlessly when you get smug about calling us intellectually bankrupt, etc., or suggesting that a tenured professor of religious studies doesn't know the Bible better than you do (or I do).

[Drich]

I revamped once i got more of his arguement.

Again it is very clear that Paul is drawing a contrast between 'the faithful' who happen to be pagan out of ignorance, and the EVIL who Paul identifies as "Evil Man" several times in Romans. Paul makes a provision and contrasts for the 'ignorant pagan' worshiping to the best of his ability verse the Evil Man of romans 1 that your 'expert' did not make. These nuances your 'expert' omited invalidate his claim that the Paul of Acts is teaching something different in Romans. Dispite what ever status and pedigree you wish award him with.

Up to this point both members of team rocket need to admit that neither of you wanted to look at the content of his claim, and only his status as a 'expert.' Which again is indeed an argument from authority.

It is my interpretation (remember, I agreed with much of what you think about Romans, so far) that Paul is referring to every person as "the evil man"

What is it in the book of Romans that makes you suggest that Paul is speaking about all of Humanity?

Because clearly when he comes to the 'end of this chapter' he contrasts the works of the 'Saved' against the works of 'Evil men' that are listed in chapter one. this would indicate that in Chapter one he is not speaking to everyone. also a good indicator is the list of sins, not everyone takes part in.

In truth Paul is recounting the documented troubles the jews had themselves with god, that are only exaggerated that much more in a Godless society.

Rom 1:28 People did not think it was important to have a true knowledge of God. So God left them and allowed them to have their own worthless thinking. And so they do what they should not do. 29 They are filled with every kind of sin, evil, greed, and hatred. They are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, lying, and thinking the worst things about each other. They gossip 30 and say evil things about each other. They hate God. They are rude, proud, and brag about themselves. They invent ways of doing evil. They don’t obey their parents, 31 they are foolish, they don’t keep their promises, and they show no kindness or mercy to others. 32 They know God’s law says that anyone who lives like that should die. But they not only continue to do these things themselves, but they also encourage others who do them.

verse Romans 2
2 So do you think that you can judge those other people? You are wrong. You too are guilty of sin. You judge them, but you do the same things they do. So when you judge them, you are really condemning yourself. 2 God judges all who do such things, and we know his judgment is right. 3 And since you do the same things as those people you judge, surely you understand that God will punish you too. How could you think you would be able to escape his judgment? 4 God has been kind to you. He has been very patient, waiting for you to change. But you think nothing of his kindness. Maybe you don’t understand that God is kind to you so that you will decide to change your lives.

The contrast from the Romans 1 group, to the Romans 2 group, is group 1 is identified as Evil, group 2 is identified as sinful. Group 2 is not the same as group one because Sin is an involuntary (as we will learn if we can continue on with this study) while Evil is embracing/loving the sin you do. So two different groups means Paul is not speaking about all of man kind in chapter 1 just 'evil man' just as he says in verse 18. which means group 2 is also repersented by the group of 'pagans' of acts 17.

Which again poops on the expert's idea that what Paul taught in Act 17 is different than what was taught in Romans. (1 and 2)

[GrandizerII]

So what is the difference? If you look at the bold face type in the Acts 17 passage I highlighted (above) Paul is pointing to the devout pagan trying to live a good life and simply does not know of the one true God. So for him their was mercy in OT days, where as now He is called to repent.

Are you blind? Do you not see that in Acts 17, Paul assumes they were following other gods out of ignorance, whereas in Romans 1, ignorance was never the reason?

[GrandizerII]

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?

Of course there are opposing sides. You don't count by the way. But do you want to know who are the ones who agree with you regarding Book of Acts being written around the time Paul supposedly died? Christians who think like you!

The majority of scholars do not agree with you. If you believe this is not true, go to Wikipedia and fix that. If I remember correctly, there was a citation there, though. So you may want to explain what that cited source got wrong maybe.

But hypothetically speaking, suppose the debate was pretty much even both sides. Then that means no consensus yet, and nothing for me to go by yet. So unless I know what I'm reading about and have done my own research properly, then remain agnostic.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

It is my interpretation (remember, I agreed with much of what you think about Romans, so far) that Paul is referring to every person as "the evil man"

What is it in the book of Romans that makes you suggest that Paul is speaking about all of Humanity?

Because clearly when he comes to the 'end of this chapter' he contrasts the works of the 'Saved' against the works of 'Evil men' that are listed in chapter one. this would indicate that in Chapter one he is not speaking to everyone. also a good indicator is the list of sins, not everyone takes part in.

In truth Paul is recounting the documented troubles the jews had themselves with god, that are only exaggerated that much more in a Godless society.

Rom 1:28 People did not think it was important to have a true knowledge of God. So God left them and allowed them to have their own worthless thinking. And so they do what they should not do. 29 They are filled with every kind of sin, evil, greed, and hatred. They are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, lying, and thinking the worst things about each other. They gossip 30 and say evil things about each other. They hate God. They are rude, proud, and brag about themselves. They invent ways of doing evil. They don’t obey their parents, 31 they are foolish, they don’t keep their promises, and they show no kindness or mercy to others. 32 They know God’s law says that anyone who lives like that should die. But they not only continue to do these things themselves, but they also encourage others who do them.

verse Romans 2
2 So do you think that you can judge those other people? You are wrong. You too are guilty of sin. You judge them, but you do the same things they do. So when you judge them, you are really condemning yourself. 2 God judges all who do such things, and we know his judgment is right. 3 And since you do the same things as those people you judge, surely you understand that God will punish you too. How could you think you would be able to escape his judgment? 4 God has been kind to you. He has been very patient, waiting for you to change. But you think nothing of his kindness. Maybe you don’t understand that God is kind to you so that you will decide to change your lives.

The contrast from the Romans 1 group, to the Romans 2 group, is group 1 is identified as Evil, group 2 is identified as sinful. Group 2 is not the same as group one because Sin is an involuntary (as we will learn if we can continue on with this study) while Evil is embracing/loving the sin you do. So two different groups means Paul is not speaking about all of man kind in chapter 1 just 'evil man' just as he says in verse 18. which means group 2 is also repersented by the group of 'pagans' of acts 17.

Which again poops on the expert's idea that what Paul taught in Act 17 is different than what was taught in Romans. (1 and 2)

I think we're talking past one another here, as I'm saying that Paul sees everyone as flawed with a sin-nature to do evil acts, but that Christians behave differently (or try to) despite those flaws because they are saved. Paul is clearly saying that all humanity has that tendency and thus behaves that way, including Christians, but that a saved Christian will avoid such behaviors through grace and repentance. Keep in mind that Paul said, "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." (1 Timothy 1:15)

Paul believed that the works of people who were saved would be visibly different than those of the unsaved, because of the grace of salvation and repentance. This is a core doctrine of Christianity. Whether it bears out in reality is an entirely different question.

So I'm not really sure what you're objecting to, here.

Edit to Add: I realize I'm not being specific enough. Your arguments that Paul is referring to two separate groups seems at odds with his perspective on the nature of being a sinner, and why Christians should behave differently, if they are saved. I think your line between "evildoers" and "sinners" is arbitrary and unsubstantiated, and he is not "clearly" referring to two different groups, there. It is part of a single thought; as you like to point out, the chapter-and-verse numbers we have were not in the originals. So I'm not sure why you're objecting to Ehrman's analysis of Paul's philosophy, since it seems to me that you're objecting to something that's not really there unless we squint and look at it sideways, and the vast majority of Christians see all humans as evil, sin as the practice of evil (that which is against God, the ultimate source of good), and all Christians as sinners-who-have-repented.