Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[GrandizerII]

So we ready for romans 4?

I think I'll start a new thread for that one. since we are 30+ pages in and still discussing Chapter 1 and 2.

Perhaps your idea isn't appealing at all to any atheist here. Why pretend it is? Is this something about having your ego boosted?

[dyresand]

It dawned on me while going through the last few threads with you all that in most of your recounting of what Christianity is, most of you don't even know the basics of Christianity as described in the bible. Which begs the question how can you hate something if you don't truly understand it? I know it happens (My dad and "Space Book"/Face book, we havent even bothered to try and explain twitter or instagram) but even so, I thought it might be nice to provide an actual line by line biblical over view of the book of romans, for those who want to know the truth or even for those who want to focus their hate on fact rather than what they remembered from sunday school.

So, Why Romans? Because when Paul wrote to the newly established church (he has sent a few of his deciples to stir up intrest and had planned to teach the gospel there personally, but got held up) So he wrote out the complete Gospel message from start to finish all in one book/Letter to the Romans. What is the Gospel exactly? In the book of Romans the gospel message is completely spelled out. It establishes the Law, the identification of sin, repentance, redemption, the new relationship we have with the law, our role with sin moving forward, our relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit, more or less the how and why of salvation/christianity.

To Paul this is all considered "Milk of the word" Meaning simple to understand/easy to digest. Verses the Meat of the word which is reserved for the more spiritually mature. The reason I am sharing this with you all is not as an attempt to save all of you, but to educate all of you on the actual biblical christian position. You all typically want to engage in 'Meat topic/debates' when you obviously don't have a grasp on the milk, and as a result are choking on the more meatier topics. (From a biblical perspective anyway I'm sure all of you do very well when grading each other's works.)

So then the question becomes why does this 'intrpretation' supposedly trump another "bible based doctrine" concerning the gospel? It doesn't when or if you are comparing the doctrines of individual expressions/denominations of faith. Meaning if you are looking to what it means to be Catholic verse baptist, this look at romans will not help you discern which doctrine is which, or even which if either is right. This look at romans however allow you to see a Contextual line by line explaination by Paul Himself telling us what the gospel is, all that means. Verses cherry picking the gospel from many different sources/many different books chapters and verses and compile it all into one patch work doctrine.
If you think about it, up until 4th or 5 century most people would not have access to all the different canonical books/letters in one bible, meaning they would not be able to put together that particular denominational doctrine if compiled from several different sources. 

On the Other side of the coin what we have in the book of Romans is Paul's very own explaination of the Gospel, the same gospel would have been used with the Corinthians, Thessalonians, Galatians, Ephesians, Timothy (of 1&2 timothy) , and Luke (of the book of Luke and the book of Acts) would have been taught and in turn taught this gospel in their own ministries. How can I say this? Again because Paul in hopes of establishing a Church in Rome sent His understanding of the gospel/what it means to be christian to the church at Rome, and we also know that Paul taught all these people listed. So in essence 2/3's of the first century church used this specific 'milk of the word' to establish their Christianity/belief.

For one seeking the truth, if one's own church/religious doctrine compiled from many different sources, conflicts with what Paul taught in romans, then for the bible based Christian what is said in Romans trumps any church doctrine UNLESS the arguement is concerning the specifics of that particular brand of worship. (What it means to be Catholic, Baptist ect...) Which would then inturn mean for the unbelieve would essentially be the same. If you believe 'X' about christianity and what paul says is "Y" then your "X" would be wrong, which I hope will help some of you retire some of the broken arguements you goto when ever certain topics come up.

Now, before we get into the actual study does anyone want to try and poo poo on what I've said here so far?
If so I will give a max of 2 days of back and fourth, before I move on to the next chapter. at the end we can discuss anything, but for the sake of getting through the book in a month's time I am going to have to set a max limit or move on daily if their are no questions or concerns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63UlBsdElsY

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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)

Actually no.

Paul is saying those who embrace sin are evil

Those who sin but hate their sin, or are ignorant of it can be saved.

The people in Acts 17 were examples of sinners.

The people of Romans 1 are identified as evil.

The people of romans 2 are just sinners.

I am not trying to talk past you, I am bring you something new you feel you already know but appearently dont.

If we can be allowed to get past all of this, the book of Romans makes a big deal between sinners and evil people. It also tells us God does not expect us to ever stop sinning in this life. We just cant embrace or love our sin, because that would make us evil. God has no room for evil people.

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.

The word in Romans 1 for evil is:
κακός kakós, kak-os'; apparently a primary word; worthless (intrinsically, such; whereas G4190 properly refers to effects), i.e. (subjectively) depraved, or (objectively) injurious:—bad, evil, harm, ill, noisome, wicked.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...2556&t=KJV

This evil is paired with this word:
ἀδικία adikía, ad-ee-kee'-ah; from G94; (legal) injustice (properly, the quality, by implication, the act); morally, wrongfulness (of character, life or act):—iniquity, unjust, unrighteousness, wrong.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...=G93&t=KJV
These two words describe "Evil men" or unrighteous men of Romans 1.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/rom/1/1/s_1047018

Verse the words describing the sin of Romans 2:
ἁμαρτάνω hamartánō, ham-ar-tan'-o; perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313; properly, to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), i.e. (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin:—for your faults, offend, sin, trespass.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...264&t=NASB

Their is a vast difference between one who 'tresspassed, has faults, miss the mark, or offends.' Verse those who are iniquitious, unjust, injurious:—bad, evil, wicked.

List 1, the sin list. One does not have to even be aware that he is in sin, or maybe in a position where that person is not in control of sin. (as per our discussion on gay people) and yet can still be in sin. This describes the people of romans 2

List or defination 2 describes someone or a group who embrace or want to do harm/sin for whatever reason. this is the people of Romans 1

So the people of Romans 2 AND Acts 17 belong to the sin group. They were either ignorant of their sin or were "slaves to sin" (per paul in romans 7) They get a different treatment from God if they repent, than those of Romans 1. the evil people/People who justify, embrace and love their sin.

I'm not sure why you think I don't grasp this element of what Paul is saying. Paul talks a LOT about "the law" (meaning Hebrew tradition) and what the concept of what God considers "sin" actually means. Nothing you're saying here is revealing or shocking to me.

It's simply a way of defining anyone who disagrees with his interpretation (and yours) of What God Wants™ as willfully evil, because they know what sin is, now, and yet refuse to accept that they are sins. It is not one shred different from the Muslims who claim, in Surah 29:45-49

"45. Recite what has been revealed to you of the Book, and establish prayer; surely prayer keeps you away from indecency and evil. Remembrance of Allah is the greatest, and Allah knows what you do.

46. Do not dispute with the people of the book except with what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in what was revealed to us, and what was revealed to you; our God and your God is one, and to Him we submit.

47. Thus We have revealed to you the book. Those whom we have given the book believe in it, and of these (Jews and Christians) there are those who believe in it; and none deny Our signs except the disbelievers.

48. You did not recite any book before it, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, for then those who follow untruth would have doubted.

49. Nay! It is a clear sign in the hearts of those who have been given knowledge; and none dispute Our signs except the unjust."

You citing Romans to us is no different than a Muslim citing Surah 29 to you.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Sin is simply not doing as you're told.

Evil is simply thinking for yourself.

Cain didn't sin when he killed Able because the God character never told Cain not to kill Able. It's a sin to eat shellfish because the God character said not to eat it.

[SofaKingHigh]

You go ahead and start your thread about Romans Ch 4 Drippy, while I shall start my own thread on what J.K was really trying to say when she came up with Quidditch.....

Should be a doozy.

[Minimalist]

11 pages of this shit?  Phew.

I always considered even the so-called "authentic" (whatever the fuck that means) epistles of "paul" ( or whoever ) to be the demented ramblings of a hallucinating maniac.  Figures that Drippy would be impressed by such.  They have much in common.

[SteelCurtain]

So we ready for romans 4?

I think I'll start a new thread for that one. since we are 30+ pages in and still discussing Chapter 1 and 2.

As predicted.

Hey! Does that make me a prophet like Stimbo?

[Drich]

The Uneddited version of Verse 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.

No excuse huh?

Yeah other than the Bible being poorly written, massively ambiguous, full of horror, violence, rape and contradictions and having no evidence to back up it's claim and just expecting everyone to "trust" it's a magic book.

Oh and other than the fact that what the Bible defines as "evil" and "sin" is often not evil at all...

Oh and other than the fact some people die before ever having even a chance to read the Bible...

...oh and other than the fact many people lived and died before the Bible was even written...

So other than that, yeah, no excuse.

Paul in that statement is not refering to the bible. Because when He wrote this their wasn't a bible for those type of people. Paul is talking about the intrinsic sence of right and wrong god placed in all of us. Paul is saying because 'EVIL People' ignore their initial sense of wrong doing, and they embraced their sin, God turned them over to their sin meaning to them their 'evil' becomes moral and right, and the things of God become evil. that is why they so willing embrace the list of Evil things he goes on to list.

[Drich]

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.

Not everyone practices EVIL Sport, ONLY EVIL PEOPLE.

Their is a vast difference between sin and evil.

you are usally about 4 posts behind Rocket, so why don't you save us both some time and read what i write him.
Just FYI that is why I call you two team rocket. "the smart one" comes up with a plan or idea/point of attack, fails, and the... "second one"(who is 4 posts behind) at his best, comes up with the same plan or idea expecting it to work...

What's funny is that you cant see this play out.

Dude, I'm the one who started the discussion with you, hello? And I asked you a question just now which you didn't answer.

So does everyone know of the existence of God (including the Athenians in Acts 17)? Yes or no? Leave aside that "evil" different from "sin" red herring for a minute and answer the question.If you want to 'put aside' the men in whom Paul is identifying in Romans 1:20 then you either know your arguement is at an end or you are without hope.No.

No. (Directly answer your question, now going to answer your objection

The Evil Men of Romans 20 all have been programmed with the knoweledge that A God exists, and as per romans1:20 as "THEY ALL have evidences set before Them..." but According to Acts 17:29-30 'we'/Those who seek Righteousness do not automatically know who He is specifically, as you can see in the example of Acts 17, they worshiped God wrongly out of ignorance in the past.

In romans 1:20 I refer to 'Them' because of the Greek word autos in the original text. In the ESV it is translated 'they.' The use of the word Autos/They infers at lest two groups of people. Paul identifies two groups of people in Romans 1 and in Romans 2. They are identified as Evil, while 'us/we' are identified as sinners. "they" have been given full knoweledge of God so "They" are with out excuse for the evil that They do. 'We' are called to repent for the wrong (worship in the case of acts 17) things we do.

αὐτός autós, ow-tos'; from the particle αὖ aû (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the idea of a baffling wind) (backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative G1438) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons:—her, it(-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, (self-), the) same, ((him-, my-, thy- )self, (your-)selves, she, that, their(-s), them(-selves), there(-at, - by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with), they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which.


https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/rom...nc_1047020

With the use of this word Paul is seperating EVIL Men From the Sinful men of Chapter 2.

You may want to 'forget the difference between The two groups of people Paul is refering to in Romans 1 and 2 inorder to save your hero expert's testimony, but in the real world we must account for EVERYTHING that is said, and not just cherry pick and window dress so we can support the people who allow us to live the way we want..

[Edwardo Piet]

Paul in that statement is not refering to the bible. Because when He wrote this their wasn't a bible for those type of people. Paul is talking about the intrinsic sence of right and wrong god placed in all of us. Paul is saying because 'EVIL People' ignore their initial sense of wrong doing, and they embraced their sin, God turned them over to their sin meaning to them their 'evil' becomes moral and right, and the things of God become evil. that is why they so willing embrace the list of Evil things he goes on to list.

First of all: God didn't place any intrinsic sense of right and wrong in any of us because he'd have to exist first - and why the fuck would we need it to know right from wrong when genetic biological + memetic cultural/The moral zeitgeist +  empathy + compassion is enough without God?

Second of all: What the fuck? God apparently decided that the best thing to do with "evil people" is to make their evil become moral and right to them? If that was the case it would seem he was trying to encourage so-called "evil people" to "be evil" by doing evil deeds. Sounds like the skyddady is naught but fucktarded.