Let's TALK about Paul...

[Dimi95]

@amatuerscholar
Can you please edit you answer , so it can be readable , and then i can answer it.
Thank you.

 

[amatuerscholar]

@amatuerscholar
Can you please edit you answer , so it can be readable , and then i can answer it.
Thank you.

Fixed it

 

[Dimi95]

The author of Luke wrote Acts. This author, as they tell us at the beginning of their writing, is creating this text as part of a commission to someone, and they have gone out and found all the sources they could find. They never give us their name, and only later tradition names him Luke.

Read carefully what i am writing now , please.
I see that you have interest in studying this and i want only to help you.
I will be sharp and clear so you can understand it.

We have ways of detecting forgeries , in which names are very important.It has been a matter of study like trillion times.

Here , one of the most recent explenations.

There is nothing that shows that the line of evidence is corrupted.Nothing , even when one says , 'then why early and later manuscripts' differ so much.It is because words change through time , and meaning of words also.
We see that very oftenly in Hebrew , but nobody says that is corrupted'.
Let's leave that side.
If you gather all the evidence and you compare them , you will note that they mean nothing because of how words change through time.
And it has been explained like trilion times with many analogies and they are very consistent on continual basis.
Like very , very consistent.

These differences were spotted BY CHRISTIANS and they taught that this would be a big issue and they studied them.They realized that these differences DO NOT affect the early teachings and the central Christian DOCTRINE.They were just an effect on words and nothing more.
There is nothing that conpromises its authencity , literally nothing except maybe the long ending of Mark which is only different in one example , and that has been explained also.

Archeology has also contributed to that matter , as with time new evidence is being discovered , and untill now nothing has compromised the authencity and reliability of the NT.

So knowing all the neccessary information about names , i don't see a reason why would anybody lie about the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts(which is a sequence of Luke)
Do you know why is it a sequence?

Btw it is not Luke , it is Luka and he is Macedonian and not Greek.
I can explain also that , but let's just not go into details if you don't have interest , you decide.

The book of Acts is not a collection of letters. No scholar supports that view. It is just the second part of the book of Luke.

False , and this is a basic mistake.
There were not Books up untill the 15 century.In ancient times they wrote on papyrus , and they were written in form of letters , scrolls , manuscripts.
I understand that no one from the 20 schollars(max) you may follow understands this.

We have answeres these silly ideas like TRILION times through History and most recently have been given 100 of examples to people like the scholars you follow.
What they do is they take a story and they make salad out of it , just by interpretating it without looking the earliest evidence.

Just name the schollar , name the Book , name the Research.

I am doing History for a very long time , not just the NT.

What I would do in a situation is irrelevant.

Noted

And Paul does just that in Acts. He basically says, I'm a Roman citizen

The writer of Acts and Luke says that , NOT Paul.

, I demand to be treated as such.

Ofc , that is what every citizen should do , demand to be treated as citizen.
If he did not say that , his death would have come much earlier.Would you do it in that situation?

Paul is portrayed as using a rhetorical question, can you legally flog a Roman citizen who isn't found to be guilty, to stop from being flogged.

I don't understand what is your issue with Paul and his right to be judged as citizen.

I didn't jump to any conclusions. Acts and the Letters of Paul stand in contrast in quite a few instances.

Well yes , but if you study them in the way of History , you would understand what kind of contrast would that be.

Paul contradicts what is written in Acts numerous times.

Name the contradictions

This means they can't both be correct.Logic suggests that when it comes to Paul, we take his word as the primary source, not Acts.

No we take no one's word and we are not concern with beliefs , we do this in the way of History and you are caught attacking his personal belief.

So if Paul doesn't mention something, and seems to contradict such a notion, we should take him more seriously.

"Yeah , he should have written , guys j must tell you , i used my right as Roman citizen to not be killed.I am so proud of that"

I am familiar with this non-sense that you are describing...

Not a basic mistake. Paul, as you admit here, didn't write Acts.

Yes , Luke did.

Acts is our only source for Paul being a Roman citizen.

The writer of Acts is our only source.
He wrote it once , nobody has to do it one more time.
So the Matter is settled.

So Paul, himself, never states he was a Roman citizen.

He doesn't have to , he is not preaching that he is God , he is preaching that Jesus is God.
If you studied his charachter then you would now that.
His teachings tells us more about his intentions and we see no need for him to mention that in any of the letters that he personally wrote.

Thus, there is no reason to think he was a Roman citizen.

There is much reason to belive he was a Roman citizens , if he was not , he would be dead much earlier.

Here's the issue. You claim no normal person would simply claim they are a Roman citizen.Yet, in Acts, that is what Paul does.

The writer of Acts tells us what Paul is saying.

Yes , if you were charged to be apostate and punishment would be on the way , you and me and everbody in this world would do that.

The entire argument for Paul being a Roman citizen is based on something you claim no normal person would do.

No,that is what you do.
Every normal person would use his right to be judged as a citizen in that situation because of death threats.

So, by your logic, having Paul claim to be a Roman citizen, as happens in Acts, is not normal, and one would think we can dismiss that claim. Thus, Paul is not a Roman citizen.

Every study shows that Paul was Roman citizen , the end.Sorry except of the scholars you follow.

More like 4 or 5. Paul wasn't born or even lived in 70 A.D., so you can't count all of that time. Paul was born in the first half of the first century. More so, we don't know if Paul's grandparents were Pharisees. We are only told that his parents were. So yeah, not a massive amount of time.

Everything that Paul teaches can be explained through the OT , which only tells that he knew what he was speaking.And we should not forget how many people were illiterate at that time.
So no , again , you are wrong.

I never assumed Paul wrote Acts. I in fact suggested otherwise by discounting Acts.
He talks about being Jewish quite frequently, and his pedigree. I would say that is stressing the fact that he is Jewish.

He talks to the Gentiles about Christ , not about being Jewish.His teaching is not about being Jewish , but being in union with God.
He is the greatest missionary in Christianity alongside Paul!

Acts may be before Romans in the Bible, but Romans was written by Paul, probably in the 50s. Acts was written by the author of Luke at the end of the 1st Century, decades after Romans.

Ok , the author somehow foeget to mention his death and the death of many others that could have culminated their ministry.
But he didn't , BECAUSE PAUL WAS STILL ALIVE WHEN LUKE WAS WRITTEN ALONGSIDE ACTS.

The great fire is long after Paul. It has no bearing on this discussion.

How did St. Paul the Apostle die?

How did St. Paul the Apostle die? The exact details of St. Paul’s death are unknown, but tradition holds that he was beheaded in Rome and thus died as

www.britannica.com

He was persecuting them as a Jew. He then sided with them, as a Jew. In specific, as a Pharisaic Jew. He never denounces that.

Bad news for you.

Philippians 3

"....For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh though I myself have reasons for such confidence.
If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.

He continues claiming he's Jewish.

Why then Philippians 3:7 say otherwise?

And again, Christianity is part of Judaism and remains that way until long after Paul is dead.

False , every Jew here can answer you this non-sense.

Christianity, by definition, is a religion. Paul was part of the Christ movement.

Christianity is not a religion , it is a belief.
Religion means following certain rules , and we don't have that.We have his teachings and in the narrative we see that we are adviced and counceled.
That's very different with rules.

No they didn't. There is no evidence for that. In fact, all mainline scholars disagree with your statement here. Michael L. White, From Jesus to Christainity argues the position I am. Fredrickson in From Jesus to Christ, argues the same position that I am. We have E.P. Sanders and his three book series on Jesus and Judiasm that agrees with this position. The position I'm taking is the standard, mainline position here.

I don't agree with bloody consensus.
I do this for a long time , i mean History.

I am from Macedonia , Biblical land , i can understand the writings better then any of them.I can understand the line of evidence better then them also.
I understand Latin Koine , Old Slavonic.

This is just the most important thing , if i could count the differences then this post would be too long to read.

This is an ad hominem. The position I'm taking is the standard position taught in mainline colleges and seminaries. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean there is something wrong with me. You can certainly do better.

I don't base my conclusion on mainstream scholarship.Consensus is not the measure of importance , neither was , neither will be.

 

[Dimi95]

The Pastoral Epistles, which are First and Second Timothy, and Titus, are almost universally recognized as forgeries.They were not written by Paul, but by someone claiming to be Paul. We know this because if we study these in comparison to the authentic letters of Paul, we notice some things that really stick out. First, the Pastoral Epistles disagree with the core texts of Paul. Second, the writing style does not appear to be of the writing style of Paul. They differ significantly. Three, the word choice and grammar differ from core Pauline Texts. Fourth, they appear to be talking about a later time in history, a time in which Paul was probably already dead. There is sound reason as to why most scholars discount these texts.

You are focused only on Textual Criticism and the result of that is the same blatant analogy.

There's some very good evidence that Paul did write these letters, and the arguments of the critics aren't really all that strong.If there was anyone in a spot to know who wrote 1st and 2nd Timothy, it would have been the church father, Polycarp. In his letter to the Philippian church written in about 110 AD, Polycarp quoted 1 Timothy 3:8, 6:7, 6:10, and 2 Timothy 2:12. He also mentions Paul by name four times in his letter, including some indications that he was familiar with the apostle's martyrdom.

That the Pastoral Epistles are forgeries are taught in mainline colleges and seminaries.Every treatment of them by scholars for at least the past 100 years have discounted them. It's not 20 scholars, we are looking at all NT scholars.

Yes , they are taugh to be forgeries by people who establish they are foegeries with no actual evidence.
This has been answered thousands of times.

This is what has been taught for generations. A consensus doesn't solve anything, but it does suggest something.

Yes , it suggest that the NT is the most authentic and the most reliable peace of ancient History.

And when we break down those texts, as I did above, there is a reason why the consensus is this way.

No you just played ping-pong with verses.
It's a common thing on this forum , but you did it in a different way.

The original Gospels don't appear until after 70 A.D. Paul and Peter are dead by then. And it makes sense that their deaths aren't mentioned because it wasn't part of the story being told. The Gospels end after the death of Jesus. Why would they then jump forward decades to say, oh yeah, Peter and Paul died too?

BECAUSE THEY ARE THE GREATEST MISSIONERIES OF CHRISTIANITY AND THEIR MINISTRY IS HIGHLY REGARDED IN THE CHURCH SINCE THE VERY BEGINING.
WE DON'T SEE WHY WOULD ANYONE JUST MISS THE MOST IMPORTANT DETAIL THAT COULD HAVE CULMINATED THEIR MINISTRY.
IT CAN MEAN ONLY SOME STRANGE REASON , OR THEY WERE STILL ALIVE AND THAT IS WHY THEY ARE NOT MENTIONED.

Most scholars would say we don't really know.

Just continue doing what you do and you will reach far.

Paul doesn't go to Jesus to get permission. He goes to James, who was the head of the movement after the death of Jesus. James was in a leadership position.

Paul does not ask anyone for permission.
He talks to them after preaching what he preached.
That's not asking for permission.
You ask for permission before you do something.

And I know a lot about traditional Christianity. You resorting to ad hominem doesn't change that fact.

In the way of History or in the way of anyone's belief?

 

[amatuerscholar]

Read carefully what i am writing now , please.

I have a degree in religious studies and history. I'm currently working on a Masters. I do have an interest in studying this sort of material, which is why I went to college for it. So I'm very well aware of this information.

Now the person you linked here is an apologist. There's nothing wrong with apologists, and I like much of his material. But he often goes against what the mainline position is, and instead takes a more fundamentalist approach, which assumes things about the Bible that can't be demonstrated.

So knowing all the neccessary information about names , i don't see a reason why would anybody lie about the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts(which is a sequence of Luke)
Do you know why is it a sequence?

Btw it is not Luke , it is Luka and he is Macedonian and not Greek.
I can explain also that , but let's just not go into details if you don't have interest , you decide.

The author of the Gospel of Luke never tells us their name. That's a later tradition. From what we can tell, the original gospel was circulated anonymously. Only later did church tradition state that the author was Luke.

The author of Luke tells us that he is collecting all of the sources he can, as he's been commissioned to write his piece (which is Luke-Acts, but because of physical limitations, it was broken into two volumes) by another.

And the attribute we have now is Luke. That's how transliteration works. The original Greek is transliterated into Latin, and then English, giving us Luke. Now the Greek itself is Λουκᾶς, which would be more properly transliterated to Loukas. But because of the movement between additional languages, we get Luke. Also, Macedonians were Greek. Macedonia, in the first century, was a small kingdom in Greek. They were either referred to as Greeks, or sometimes Macedonian Greeks. And after all, Alexander the Great, who is recognized as a Greek, is the one who helped usher in the Hellenistic period. Hellenism here referring to Greek culture. Now after a number of wars, Macedonia, the portion that would still be seen as Macedonia in the first century, came under Roman control in the second century, BC, where Macedonia became a province of Rome. Again though, it was seen as part of Greece, and calling them Greeks is historically accurate.

False , and this is a basic mistake.
There were not Books up untill the 15 century.In ancient times they wrote on papyrus , and they were written in form of letters , scrolls , manuscripts.
I understand that no one from the 20 schollars(max) you may follow understands this.

We have answeres these silly ideas like TRILION times through History and most recently have been given 100 of examples to people like the scholars you follow.
What they do is they take a story and they make salad out of it , just by interpretating it without looking the earliest evidence.

Just name the schollar , name the Book , name the Research.

I am doing History for a very long time , not just the NT.

I have a degree in history. I'm not making basic mistakes here. In ancient times, a variety of things were used to write on. Yeah, papyrus was used, as was vellum, stones, etc. And they had a variety of difference genres, some of which we can call books. While there is letter writings, scrolls and manuscripts (which we can call books) are more descriptive of the sort of "book" we are talking about. Letters is something else.

And this is where I end this discussion as I will not participate in a debate where you can't refrain from making demeaning remarks based on your own ignorance. Making the ignorant claim that I only follow, at max, 20 scholars, is a false assumption and an ad hominem, directed at me in order to try to argue that I'm ignorant. The fact is, you have no idea of my educational background, or the thousands of books I've read in the broad topic of religious studies. If you want to refrain from making such ignorant assumptions, and from demeaning me, we can continue with this debate. But I will not move forward if all you really have is ad homniems. It's not worth my time.

 

[jimb]

I have a degree in religious studies and history. I'm currently working on a Masters. I do have an interest in studying this sort of material, which is why I went to college for it. So I'm very well aware of this information.

Now the person you linked here is an apologist. There's nothing wrong with apologists, and I like much of his material. But he often goes against what the mainline position is, and instead takes a more fundamentalist approach, which assumes things about the Bible that can't be demonstrated.
The author of the Gospel of Luke never tells us their name. That's a later tradition. From what we can tell, the original gospel was circulated anonymously. Only later did church tradition state that the author was Luke.

The author of Luke tells us that he is collecting all of the sources he can, as he's been commissioned to write his piece (which is Luke-Acts, but because of physical limitations, it was broken into two volumes) by another.

And the attribute we have now is Luke. That's how transliteration works. The original Greek is transliterated into Latin, and then English, giving us Luke. Now the Greek itself is Λουκᾶς, which would be more properly transliterated to Loukas. But because of the movement between additional languages, we get Luke. Also, Macedonians were Greek. Macedonia, in the first century, was a small kingdom in Greek. They were either referred to as Greeks, or sometimes Macedonian Greeks. And after all, Alexander the Great, who is recognized as a Greek, is the one who helped usher in the Hellenistic period. Hellenism here referring to Greek culture. Now after a number of wars, Macedonia, the portion that would still be seen as Macedonia in the first century, came under Roman control in the second century, BC, where Macedonia became a province of Rome. Again though, it was seen as part of Greece, and calling them Greeks is historically accurate.


I have a degree in history. I'm not making basic mistakes here. In ancient times, a variety of things were used to write on. Yeah, papyrus was used, as was vellum, stones, etc. And they had a variety of difference genres, some of which we can call books. While there is letter writings, scrolls and manuscripts (which we can call books) are more descriptive of the sort of "book" we are talking about. Letters is something else.

And this is where I end this discussion as I will not participate in a debate where you can't refrain from making demeaning remarks based on your own ignorance. Making the ignorant claim that I only follow, at max, 20 scholars, is a false assumption and an ad hominem, directed at me in order to try to argue that I'm ignorant. The fact is, you have no idea of my educational background, or the thousands of books I've read in the broad topic of religious studies. If you want to refrain from making such ignorant assumptions, and from demeaning me, we can continue with this debate. But I will not move forward if all you really have is ad homniems. It's not worth my time.

If you are supposedly a scholar who has read "thousands of books", why can't you even spell your own "handle" correctly @amatuerscholar?

 

[Dimi95]

I have a degree in religious studies and history. I'm currently working on a Masters. I do have an interest in studying this sort of material, which is why I went to college for it. So I'm very well aware of this information.

Now the person you linked here is an apologist. There's nothing wrong with apologists, and I like much of his material. But he often goes against what the mainline position is, and instead takes a more fundamentalist approach, which assumes things about the Bible that can't be demonstrated.
The author of the Gospel of Luke never tells us their name. That's a later tradition. From what we can tell, the original gospel was circulated anonymously. Only later did church tradition state that the author was Luke.

The author of Luke tells us that he is collecting all of the sources he can, as he's been commissioned to write his piece (which is Luke-Acts, but because of physical limitations, it was broken into two volumes) by another.

And the attribute we have now is Luke. That's how transliteration works. The original Greek is transliterated into Latin, and then English, giving us Luke. Now the Greek itself is Λουκᾶς, which would be more properly transliterated to Loukas. But because of the movement between additional languages, we get Luke. Also, Macedonians were Greek. Macedonia, in the first century, was a small kingdom in Greek. They were either referred to as Greeks, or sometimes Macedonian Greeks. And after all, Alexander the Great, who is recognized as a Greek, is the one who helped usher in the Hellenistic period. Hellenism here referring to Greek culture. Now after a number of wars, Macedonia, the portion that would still be seen as Macedonia in the first century, came under Roman control in the second century, BC, where Macedonia became a province of Rome. Again though, it was seen as part of Greece, and calling them Greeks is historically accurate.


I have a degree in history. I'm not making basic mistakes here. In ancient times, a variety of things were used to write on. Yeah, papyrus was used, as was vellum, stones, etc. And they had a variety of difference genres, some of which we can call books. While there is letter writings, scrolls and manuscripts (which we can call books) are more descriptive of the sort of "book" we are talking about. Letters is something else.

And this is where I end this discussion as I will not participate in a debate where you can't refrain from making demeaning remarks based on your own ignorance. Making the ignorant claim that I only follow, at max, 20 scholars, is a false assumption and an ad hominem, directed at me in order to try to argue that I'm ignorant. The fact is, you have no idea of my educational background, or the thousands of books I've read in the broad topic of religious studies. If you want to refrain from making such ignorant assumptions, and from demeaning me, we can continue with this debate. But I will not move forward if all you really have is ad homniems. It's not worth my time.

1.Knowledge in ancient languages matters more in biblical study then reading all the religious books that you have read...
That's the crucial thing and you can ask any scholar about that.

2.We know that the Gaelic War is by Ceasar because later writers atributed it to his name.
The same way we know that Gospel is by Luke , because later writers atributed it to his name.
The same analogy aplies everywhere in any story , not just the NT.

3.You don't understand the issue between Macedonia and Greece and you have learned only what it has been given to you in THE WEST , and Macedonia and Greece are far in south-east Europe.
This is a large topic of discussion and a Book the size of the Bible would be to small to describe it.

We have been persecuted from our lands , with blood they have taken our territory and build a country on that name.

Please out of respect , stop talking about this.

I have pictures of beheaded heads , do you want to see them?
From Ottomans and Greeks together.
How they have murdered Macedonian people in Aegan Macedonia.
And all of the Western people have been lied to about that part of History.

 

[amatuerscholar]

If you are supposedly a scholar who has read "thousands of books", why can't you even spell your own "handle" correctly @amatuerscholar?

Because I'm an amateur. And reading thousands of books really isn't a big feat when it comes to someone in a religious studies or history program. Especially if you're going into Master level work. Seriously, I'm on the low end of the reading scale here.

 

[jimb]

Because I'm an amateur. And reading thousands of books really isn't a big feat when it comes to someone in a religious studies or history program. Especially if you're going into Master level work. Seriously, I'm on the low end of the reading scale here.

But that doesn't explain why your "handle" is @amatuerscholar You should be able to spell correctly if you've read thousands of books.

 

[amatuerscholar]

But that doesn't explain why your "handle" is @amatuerscholar You should be able to spell correctly if you've read thousands of books.

It's a joke. I'm an amateur.

Oh and no, just because you read a lot doesn't mean you never make a spelling mistake.

And seriously, if the best you have is an ad hominem, maybe don't waste either one of our time. If you want a real discussion or debate, I'm here. If all you have are demeaning remarks, then bother someone else.

 

[amatuerscholar]

1.Knowledge in ancient languages matters more in biblical study then reading all the religious books that you have read...
That's the crucial thing and you can ask any scholar about that.

You really need to stop doing this. Deal with the material, don't make baseless assumptions about me. You can do better.

Here's the thing. I majored in Greek and Classics. First year of Greek was studying Classical Greek. Second year was looking at the New Testament and early Christian texts. After that, it was more independent study, with mine, as I was majoring in Religious Studies, focused on Christian texts, but more in depth. Minoring in Classics also meant I learned Latin as well. My Latin isn't nearly as good as my Greek, but it doesn't need to be.

I also studied Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Now, not as good as my Greek, as my focus is really New Testament Studies, but I have that background. And just because I was told by multiple people that I should learn German and French, as a lot of relevant scholarship is in those languages, I also learned those a bit. I'm better at French, but I'm learning more Greek as I'm getting into a lot of German philosophical work as I work on my Masters.

So don't make assumptions.

2.We know that the Gaelic War is by Ceasar because later writers atributed it to his name.
The same way we know that Gospel is by Luke , because later writers atributed it to his name.
The same analogy aplies everywhere in any story , not just the NT.

We know Caesar wrote those texts because they were attributed to him when he was alive. It wasn't that later writers attributed to him, it was that he released them, and people who were his contemporaries knew that he wrote them, and mentioned them. For instance, Gaius Asinius Pollio, who served under Caesar, criticized the accounts of Caesar. We also have Cicero, who attribute the work to his contemporary, Caesar.

So the analogy you made is not similar in anyway. It isn't until Irenaeus that we get the name of Luke.

3.You don't understand the issue between Macedonia and Greece and you have learned only what it has been given to you in THE WEST , and Macedonia and Greece are far in south-east Europe.
This is a large topic of discussion and a Book the size of the Bible would be to small to describe it.

Modern day Macedonia isn't the Macedonia of the First Century, or prior to that. You're conflating the two. You brought up Macedonia by trying to correct the claim that Luke wouldn't have been Greek, but Macedonian. However, as I pointed out, that is incorrect when speaking of Macedonia in the First Century, which was at the time, a Roman Province, and it was equated with Greek culture. So calling them Greek is historically correct.

 

[Dimi95]

You really need to stop doing this. Deal with the material, don't make baseless assumptions about me. You can do better.

Here's the thing. I majored in Greek and Classics. First year of Greek was studying Classical Greek. Second year was looking at the New Testament and early Christian texts. After that, it was more independent study, with mine, as I was majoring in Religious Studies, focused on Christian texts, but more in depth. Minoring in Classics also meant I learned Latin as well. My Latin isn't nearly as good as my Greek, but it doesn't need to be.

I also studied Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Now, not as good as my Greek, as my focus is really New Testament Studies, but I have that background. And just because I was told by multiple people that I should learn German and French, as a lot of relevant scholarship is in those languages, I also learned those a bit. I'm better at French, but I'm learning more Greek as I'm getting into a lot of German philosophical work as I work on my Masters.

So don't make assumptions.

We know Caesar wrote those texts because they were attributed to him when he was alive. It wasn't that later writers attributed to him, it was that he released them, and people who were his contemporaries knew that he wrote them, and mentioned them. For instance, Gaius Asinius Pollio, who served under Caesar, criticized the accounts of Caesar. We also have Cicero, who attribute the work to his contemporary, Caesar.

So the analogy you made is not similar in anyway. It isn't until Irenaeus that we get the name of Luke.

Modern day Macedonia isn't the Macedonia of the First Century, or prior to that. You're conflating the two. You brought up Macedonia by trying to correct the claim that Luke wouldn't have been Greek, but Macedonian. However, as I pointed out, that is incorrect when speaking of Macedonia in the First Century, which was at the time, a Roman Province, and it was equated with Greek culture. So calling them Greek is historically correct.

It doesn't matter , it's all good.
You just keep with your work and your studies.

Take care

 

[jimb]

It's a joke. I'm an amateur.

Oh and no, just because you read a lot doesn't mean you never make a spelling mistake.

And seriously, if the best you have is an ad hominem, maybe don't waste either one of our time. If you want a real discussion or debate, I'm here. If all you have are demeaning remarks, then bother someone else.

Why don't I believe you?

What about your ad hominem second paragraph? That doesn't count in your hypocritical attack?

BTW, there is a grammatical error in your third paragraph. See if you can find it...

 

[amatuerscholar]

Why don't I believe you?

What about your ad hominem second paragraph? That doesn't count in your hypocritical attack?

BTW, there is a grammatical error in your third paragraph. See if you can find it...

If you want a debate, I'm here. If you want to act like a child, I won't waste my time.

 

[jimb]

If you want a debate, I'm here. If you want to act like a child, I won't waste my time.

See you later. You are wasting MY time and ACTING CHILDISH.

 

[Dimi95]

@amatuerscholar
We can start from the begining , maybe one-on-one debate would be good.
It is better when you sleep over
I apologize for some words.

But i suggest that we start with question and not with conclusions.
And i don't want to talk only about Paul , but the NT in general.

 

[amatuerscholar]

@amatuerscholar
We can start from the begining , maybe one-on-one debate would be good.
It is better when you sleep over
I apologize for some words.

But i suggest that we start with question and not with conclusions.
And i don't want to talk only about Paul , but the NT in general.

I think that would be great.

 

[Dimi95]

I think that would be great.

Ok , that's cool.
Thank you for the understanding.

I suggest that we move to One-on-one debates in the section 'General Debates'

"Christianity and the NT in the way of History" is what i suggest should be the topic of the discussion.

Tell me what you think

 

[amatuerscholar]

Tell me what you think

I think that's a great topic.

 

[wellwisher]

It's the difference between sin and disobedience ... The difference between a spirit of truth and not adhering to an enacted law of the land. Sin isn't necessarily about the laws of the land, but more so about truth and our ability to differentiate truth from error as people and our willingness to do so. Laws are made to help keep order among men, and as you suggested laws are what make men disobedient, which is also counted as sin. Truth on the other hand, operates though a very different dynamic, one which we all fall short of in practice, and due to our natural state of ignorance. These are forgiven because no law has been broken. Those enacted to help maintain order aren't so forgiving, thus require a recompence or penalty. We're held accountable either way. With truth and ability to discern we grow in understanding, but to not adhere to a spirit of truth is like an acceptance to be willfully ignorant, which has its own consequence.

Paul is one of my favorite teachers. I've learned a great deal from reading his work.

Truth cannot be found via knowledge of good and evil or law. Knowledge of good and evil is a binary form of knowledge, where the good and evil a set. The good implies an evil, and the evil implies a good. They work as a set, and can, at best, give you half truths or relative truth.

I can say a good thing to have is love, and you can say the evil thing to have is hate. Law and knowledge of good and evil, is similar to a magnetic, with a North and South Pole. Physics has never found a monopole, or just a North or just a South Pole all by itself. Knowledge of good and evil is the same way. But defining any new good; must love Kamala Harris, this automatically implies an evil; must hate Trump. The set goes together, with the evil more illusionary, making the composite, less than honest and truthful with oneself.

Since good and evil go together, if you lived in dark times, full of evil and suffering, the light of good will also shine, within the mind, since the opposite good, is also implied by the darkness; solutions. This helps to advance culture.

O Holy night! The stars are brightly shining
It is the night of our dear Savior's birth
Long lay the world in sin and error pining
'Til He appeared and the soul felt its worth
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn
Fall on your knees; O hear the Angel voices!
O night divine, O night when Christ was born
O night, O Holy night, O night divine!

The opposite is also true, if all was good, then the discontent of evil will also appear to mess it up. Trump had a good economy in 2018, and there was a sense of positive. But since good and evil are a set, fake news could not help but try to rain on the parade. The truth gets confused. The political dividing line is set up as the binary of good versus evil from the POV of either side.

Jesus and Paul understood the binary nature of good and evil. Satan is classically referred to as the Binarius; forked tongue, or the one that becomes two; truth becomes good and evil. The best you can get with law and knowledge of good and evil, is half or relative truth.

The tree of life and truth is more like nature and instinct. The natural animal is true it is impulses, without any value judgement of good and evil. There is only the truth, that it follows, which allows it to live and thrive. Good and evil is a human flaw. God never wanted law and good and evil and tabooed that for Adam and Eve. It is strange how people will still defend what God never endorsed. Paul and Jesus were going for a system restore point before the fall, not after the fall and just after the Mosaic Law. The latter was an update but still binary.

So when Paul says he became all things to all men, he was demonstrating following his instincts; inner voice of the spirit of truth, and not depending on learned knowledge of good and evil customs, so his mind and heart could remain unattached to the binarius and he could see the truth in the family of man; one species with a common humanity.