Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[GrandizerII]

Romans 1:20 says God is perceived by the mind through his creation. This means every person with a rational mind should know of God according to Romans 1:20. What Acts 17 states or implies is that Romans 1:20 is not entirely true.
Not my problem the passages contradict.
Yes, because you know Greek now, eh? Please stop changing the intended meaning.

No he's not. He's separating the group of unbelievers from the group of believers who are pretty much just as bad as the former group because, as Paul makes clear in Romans, it's not enough to hear the law but to obey it.

Ah, I see now. You are one who believes the bible was written in english, so when you see what you think is a contradiction, you believe it to be a flaw in the scripture, and don't question the translation.

The Reason I posted the greek was to establish that the "They" in romans 20 means The Evil men being spoken of can be identified/isolated as one group of people. which breaks your claim that their is a contradiction. The only way for you to claim a contradiction is if you ignore both the english and greek and insist that the word 'they in verse 20 actually means 'we'.

20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

So bury your head in the sand if you like, but your arguement based on 'er-ham's work is at an end.

"They" refers to those who reject God by worshiping other gods, just as the Athenians in Acts 17 worshiped other gods instead of God. Except in Acts 17, Paul blames it on their ignorance of God rather than deliberate rejection.

But the fact that Romans 1:20 says God is perceived by the mind means that, according to Romans 1:20, all minds can perceive God, including the ones referred to by Paul.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Ah, I see now. You are one who believes the bible was written in english, so when you see what you think is a contradiction, you believe it to be a flaw in the scripture, and don't question the translation.

The Reason I posted the greek was to establish that the "They" in romans 20 means The Evil men being spoken of can be identified/isolated as one group of people. which breaks your claim that their is a contradiction. The only way for you to claim a contradiction is if you ignore both the english and greek and insist that the word 'they in verse 20 actually means 'we'.

20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

So bury your head in the sand if you like, but your arguement based on 'er-ham's work is at an end.

Still splitting hairs, I see. "They" can also refer to part of your own group, if they are doing something that you have ceased to do or are in some other way distinct. As we have pointed out, the "they" here can refer to those who have continued to act on their "sin nature" by committing evil deeds, while the saved-by-faith have ceased to do so.

For instance: 

"My friends and I all attended the football game, together. We all screamed at the big, game-winning touchdown, but I gagged on a bit of pretzel and had to stop screaming after five seconds. They continued to scream for several minutes."

[Drich]

Romans 1:20 says God is perceived by the mind through his creation. This means every person with a rational mind should know of God according to Romans 1:20. What Acts 17 states or implies is that Romans 1:20 is not entirely true.
Not my problem the passages contradict.

Didn't i call you out for cherrypicking already? Your not even quoting a full verse. why is that? It is because the second 1/2 of the verse reframes the first 1/2 to where you can not use it in your arguement?

Yes, because you know Greek now, eh?

actually I've studied the bible in Koine greek for the last 20 years.

Please stop changing the intended meaning.

It's not me who changed the meaning of this passage. All I've done is forced you to look at the whole verse and not the smoke and mirrors Er-ham wants us to see. You can not refute nor deny what this whole verse/passage implys without cutting out the words that frame it how i have indicated. the word "they" in verse 20 points to the Evil Men Paul has identified. Not to everyone.

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

No he's not. He's separating the group of unbelievers from the group of believers who are pretty much just as bad as the former group because, as Paul makes clear in Romans, it's not enough to hear the law but to obey it.
[/quote]

This maybe true, from a commentators pov, but that is not what Paul actually says. No where in Chapter 1 are the people identified as simple 'unbelievers.' they are identified as 'Evil or unrighteous Men.' Like wise while Paul is speaking to believers in Chapter 2 he makes a strong point to show them that despite their belief they are all active sinners. that is why he says do not judge the evil.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

By the way, I want you to pause and think about what you're really doing, here.

You're sitting there, lecturing a group of atheists about how Paul says people who reject God after being witnessed to only do so because they choose the evil over the good, and expect us not to notice that Paul is saying "everyone is like this, except for those who are saved?"

You want to split hairs to make it sound like Paul is saying that the nature of the Saved persons is different. He doesn't say that. He's only saying that the power of Christ's salvation is transformative. He is not referring to someone else, but to "there but for the grace of God go I."

Pointing out that this position is not really found expressed in the same way in Acts (written by others) versus what he wrote himself is what I would expect of any honest Biblical scholar. You are not on that list, I'm afraid. But go on, continue to split hairs in an obvious way to an audience who has been blasted with that very message since we came out as atheists to our religious friends/family, and tell us we missed the real message because of a fine point about grammar which you contend and we do not see... and keep insisting that we "just don't get it".

Then go read a copy of How To Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie, because you're doing it wrong.

[GrandizerII]

This maybe true, from a commentators pov, but that is not what Paul actually says. No where in Chapter 1 are the people identified as simple 'unbelievers.' they are identified as 'Evil or unrighteous Men.' Like wise while Paul is speaking to believers in Chapter 2 he makes a strong point to show them that despite their belief they are all active sinners. that is why he says do not judge the evil.

Romans 1:
21 because, having known God they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor gave thanks, but were made vain in their reasonings, and their unintelligent heart was darkened,
22 professing to be wise, they were made fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of fowls, and of quadrupeds, and of reptiles.

This is pretty much referring to unbelievers.

[Drich]

No, no, no. What you're doing pretending to give us "lessons" in the meaning of the Epistle to the Romans. Trying to focus on just one narrow part of the argument while ignoring the overall arc (and claiming I am not "on target" when I keep to the overall narrative) is dishonest and disingenuous.

Nice try but no. When irrational first brought this up I address the whole arch. Irrational seemed to think he had his best shot of defeating me with the one aspect of er-ham's argument. so we when on ad naussium here, then you chimed in two or three posts in. If you want to discuss the rest of the arch go back and address what i had to say. I am not setting the pace here as this is not topical to my post. so if we are focused on this, it is because someone thinks this arguemnt has the best shot of winning this argument.

Your assertion that Ehrman (us as well) does not understand the Bible because he violates your sense of how to interpret Romans and Acts together is related to the overall point. From what I have read of Ehrman (I have read many of his articles, but not his books), he seems to be making a claim that if you take the total number of points made about Paul's views by Paul, and compare it to the pseudonymous (apocryphal/interpolated/pick-your-term) letters attributed to him and the accounts written of him by others, you can see there are some distinctions significant enough in totality to show that it's not a single picture. It is clear that others have drawn a caricature of the man which differs in measurable ways from his own self-description, enough to show that the legend had changed into a different personal philosophy, or that Paul's own philosophy was different from what others thought of him.

And I believe Er-ham fails here as well, because Paul himself only 'self describes' relevant parts of himself to whom he is teaching. So to say The Paul of romans seems different than the Paul of Acts is observant, because He Is Different!

1 cor 9:
19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[c] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[d] but under law toward Christ[e]), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as[f] weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

He is different because that is how he taught all the different people he approached, not because of er-ham's reasoning. Luke (the Author of Acts) saw Paul from a 3rd person perspective. He saw 'the man behind the curtain' as well as 'The great Oz' while Paul in his letters only showed 'Oz' in one form or another.

So again er-Ham fails because he does not reconcile this fact with Paul's own revealed nature. Er-ham can't seem to put together that the man behind the curtain and "Oz the great" are the same being.

The odd distinction you are drawing is a mistake because it looks back at Paul from 2000 years later; if you look at it from the time he was writing, then he is saying that (like the Qur'an says) that people before that time had an excuse for those willing to act on their inherent evil and/or sinful natures, while "nowadays" others do not, because they have access to The Truth about God™ (which doesn't necessarily mean Christ, but of course Christ according to his followers came to give us specific instructions/guidance for good behavior, according to God, and his death absolves us of the debt to God for our sins as well). Calling them different groups, as you do, seems to be more than just splitting hairs.

Again, Paul is working off the principle of judgement Christ establishes in the parable of the talents. "We are judged based not on our ability to acheave a perfect sinless standard, but on what God gives us." Paul is saying in Acts 17 that God does not count the worship of idols that the ignorant men were doing in OT times as evil, because God did not give them the tools or understanding they needed to properly worship him, they will not be judged according to the "thou shalt not have anyother God's before me command." On the other hand now in NT times When men do this and know the gospel, it is counted as evil.

If this is splitting hairs, then know the hair was split by Paul, and not me. maybe because it is too fine of a point that er-ham misses it.

[Drich]

This maybe true, from a commentators pov, but that is not what Paul actually says. No where in Chapter 1 are the people identified as simple 'unbelievers.' they are identified as 'Evil or unrighteous Men.' Like wise while Paul is speaking to believers in Chapter 2 he makes a strong point to show them that despite their belief they are all active sinners. that is why he says do not judge the evil.

Romans 1:
21 because, having known God they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor gave thanks, but were made vain in their reasonings, and their unintelligent heart was darkened,
22 professing to be wise, they were made fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of fowls, and of quadrupeds, and of reptiles.

This is pretty much referring to unbelievers.

Again sport I used the word commentator, it means one making an observation/comment on a text. You are making an observation about the text that the text does not make.

In otherwords I acknoweledged that from a commentators POV you are correct, but again that is not the point Paul is making. Paul is making a point that goes beyond just disbelief. One can not believe and not be Evil. Paul is speaking about EVIL Men

[Drich]

By the way, I want you to pause and think about what you're really doing, here.

You're sitting there, lecturing a group of atheists about how Paul says people who reject God after being witnessed to only do so because they choose the evil over the good, and expect us not to notice that Paul is saying "everyone is like this, except for those who are saved?"

Show me where Paul says Everyone is Evil who is not saved. Paul in Acts 17 Shows us that their are those who do not know God yet try and worship what they do know of God. This group like the saved Group is not considered Evil, just sinful. They are in sin and need attonement, but are not evil with no hope of salvation.

So again, two groups, one evil/no hope. one sinful still hell bound without salvation, but not 'written off' by God. The 'save' even though 'saved' are still and always will be so long as we draw breath are sinners, just like the group in acts 17.

You want to split hairs to make it sound like Paul is saying that the nature of the Saved persons is different. He doesn't say that. He's only saying that the power of Christ's salvation is transformative. He is not referring to someone else, but to "there but for the grace of God go I."

Not saying that.

Pointing out that this position is not really found expressed in the same way in Acts (written by others) versus what he wrote himself is what I would expect of any honest Biblical scholar. You are not on that list, I'm afraid. But go on, continue to split hairs in an obvious way to an audience who has been blasted with that very message since we came out as atheists to our religious friends/family, and tell us we missed the real message because of a fine point about grammar which you contend and we do not see... and keep insisting that we "just don't get it".

Then go read a copy of How To Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie, because you're doing it wrong.

The truth is you don't get it because you believe christian is a shade of black and white that you think you know. fact is just by what youve written today you believe this is all about good believers and evil non believers. and me trying to subdivide this grouping of your is somehow splitting hairs, it's not.

It's about evil people, and sinners. we are all sinners. Evil people love the sin they are in. Their are no 'good people.' So again, Paul subdivides the sinners into those who heard the gospel and believe and those who have not heard. something Paul discusses at length in chapter 10 and 11 if we are allowed to get there. this is what was recorded in Acts 17 from a 3rd person perspective. Paul in practice teaching the greek scholars what he will be telling the romans in his own words in chapter 10 and 11.

[Minimalist]

It's about evil people, and sinners. we are all sinners.

Speak for yourself, shithead.  "Sin" is designed to scare the piss out of morons like you.

[Crossless2.0]

So again, Paul subdivides the sinners into those who heard the gospel and believe and those who have not heard. something Paul discusses at length in chapter 10 and 11 if we are allowed to get there.

Dear Jesus,

If you are real, please stop Drich long before chapters 10 and 11. Please. A little Rapture might be nice, but if you don't want to do it that way I'll understand. But please no more of Paul's ravings. You've always known how I feel about some of your friends.

Say hi to your parents for me. If you get around these parts, we can kick it, have a few beers, and laugh about the ironies of life.

Until then . . . take care.

Love,
Crossless1