jakejonesiv

Hi Sheshbazzar,

You conduct yourself admirablely among groups of various beliefs.

You say that But you do not, do you? Unless you pretend to be something you are not in order to gain the trust of someone in order to convert them to your belief system, you are not coming from the same place as "Paul."

Best Regards,
Jake

Sheshbazzar

No, I could not ever stand in Paul's place, because unlike Paul. I was never born into Judaism, or in the linage of an identifiable Tribe of Israel, and I have never been "a Pharisee of the straitest sect", Nor learned The Law at Gamaliel's feet.
I would never so attempt to deceive anyone.

However, not as if I myself am nothing from nowhere; The person that inquires of me, will hear of my story, and of my beliefs,
all of which I hold without shame.
Perhaps some Jew would find something of a personal interest, something of personal value and of personal application,
or something persuasive in what I things I have to impart to whomsoever may make such inquiry.

If Paul had conducted himself in a manner approved among Gentiles, he would have in so doing, estranged himself to strict Jews, and would have been looked on as being a Goy, an 'outsider', a non-Jew, one such as the more zealous among the Jews would not even so much as sit nor eat with. Why should he so alienate himself to his own nation and kinsman?
But with Gentiles not under The Law, Paul became as one not under The Law; Putting off all pride of birth, and of place, so condescending to sit, to eat, and to converse of the holy things with these 'men of low estate', thus he found favor both for himself, and for that form of the Jewish religion which he taught to all men everywhere.





.

aa5874

You are STUCK on Romans 3.7 "now for the twelfth or thirteenth time".

You are incapable of adressing your ARGUMENT from SILENCE that Simon Magus the magician and occultist was Paul and that Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos".

This THREAD is about ARGUMENTS from SILENCE.

gurugeorge

Oh I'm quite capable of addressing it all right, but before I address it could you please kindly answer the question I first asked you, a few posts before you asked me about that? The question you've ignored something like fifteen times now?

Just to remind you, here's the background again: you seem to place great weight on Romans 3:7, you've often brought it up in your posts as a clear-cut place where you find the author (whoever he was) of the "Paul" writings saying that he lied for the glory of God. Many, many times you've used this as one piece of evidence for your position. One piece among many, but an important one.

After all, it would be quite important if the "Paul" writer did admit that he'd lied for the glory of God, right? It would be quite an impressive piece of evidence.

In particular, you've often brought it up as a piece of supposedly hard evidence to block my suggestion that some of the other passages you often quote, could be merely examples of visionary experience.

I'd like to get to the bottom of that, so, I'm asking you again. Where in Romans 3:7 do you see evidence that "Paul" admits he lied for the glory of God? Here's the passage again, for your convenience:-

So please show me, aa, where in this bit of text - not in other bits of text you often quote, but in THIS bit of text that you often quote - where in this bit of text, do you find the author, whoever he was, saying that he lied for the glory of God?

Vivisector

George, you are my new role model for patience.

:notworthy:

Cheers,

V.

aa5874

You thought it was HARD to find a source that claimed Marcion's Phantom came down from heaven to Capernaum in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius?

I try not to present ARGUMENTS from SILENCE.

Sheshbazzar

Damn! I'm sure getting weary of waiting for all of that evidence that 'Paul' was really Simon Magus.

aa5874

Perhaps gurugeorge MIS-INTERPRETED Justin Martyr's "First Apology" XXVI

jakejonesiv

I am trying to establish a dialogue with you where you can answer questions without delays and evasions. I want to know what YOU consider to be the trustworthy evidence.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

Are you some kind of INVESTIGATOR? I am the ONLY one answering ALL the QUESTIONS and is ACCUSED of EVASION while you ANSWER NOTHING.

You do not seem to want to have a dialogue at all. You seem to think you have some question I can't answer.

But, ALL I know there is evidence of antiquity that suggest "Paul" was a LIAR and CONFESSED that he LIED.

What do you CONSIDER trustworthy evidence?

I Consider writings under the NAME "Paul" to be historically UNRELIABLE and some instances IMPROBABLE.

There are Christians writers of Antiquity that have fundamentally CONTRADICTED "Paul". Based on Justin Martyr, Aristides and Arnobius it was the 12 disciples of the supposed Jesus that preached the Gospel THROUGHOUT the world to EVERY RACE of Men.

This is "Paul" claiming that he was the one who was given the MANDATE and PREACHED to the UNCIRCUMCISED.

Galatians 2.7 "Paul" claimed that he had a MANDATE to preach to the Gentiles but Justin Martyr, Aristides and Arnobius don't seem AWARE of the "Pauline Mandate by Jesus Christ" to preach to the Gentiles.

It was the 12 ILLITERATE disciples from Jerusalem that was supposedly MANDATED by Jesus Christ and PREACHED the Gospel to EVERY RACE of Men.

"First Apology" XXXIX