gurugeorge

Ha, well, cunningly, I'm pretty sure I'll never have to get up off my lazy ass and put a post together with it, because I am almost 100% certain that aa will never straightforwardly confront that passage, because he risks admitting he was grossly, stupidly wrong about something quite important to his theory, and that (if I have the measure of him) he will never do.

But the Universe is a wonderful thing, it might yet surprise us - and then I'll be in deep doo-doo!

(Incidentally, I did give a rough outline of where I got the idea from in the very post that aa latched onto his question as a distraction from mine - it's all the standard Detering, Price, etc., plus my usual considerations. I believe Price is coming out with a book soon, The Amazing Colossal Apostle, where he'll be saying something along these lines. I should probably get it to arm myself, in the event that aa suddenly gets religion )

aa5874

Well, Well, Well. More EXCUSES.

If you had any credible historical evidence from that Simon Magus the magician and OCCULTIST was Paul and that Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos" then you would have presented the evidence TO SHOW ME UP.

But, as I PREDICTED, you have NOTHING credible from antiquity for your claims.

People may not realize it but you are actually CONFESSING that you will be in DOO-DOO if you ATTEMPT to show Simon Magus the magician and OCCULTIST was Paul and that Simon Magus was "Paulos".

You have a "ROUGH OUTLINE"!!!

What ROUGHAGE is that!!!!!

You SIMPLY presented an ARGUMENT from Silence that is ALL. You have NOTHING credible from antiquity for "Paul/Simon Magus/Paulos"

But, I have evidence from antiquity that CONTRADICTS "Paul". I have evidence from Christians writers that support my theory that "PAUL" LIED for the Glory of God.

"First Apology" XXXIX

gurugeorge

Ah, you apparently have more to say! Seeing as you're so talkative, how about responding to my question?

Just to remind you, you often rely on a certain passage in the "Paul" writings, Romans 3:7. I don't think that passage means what you think it means. But maybe it does. Care to defend your contention that Romans 3:7 is an admission by the "Paul" writer that he "lied for the glory of God"?

Here's the passage again:-

So once again, now for the sixteenth time and counting, where in this passage do you see an admission by the "Paul" writer that he lied for the glory of God?

Where is it aa?

Promise I'll get back to you on Simon Magus just as soon as you respond straightforwardly to my question.

hjalti

gurugeorge, you seem to be trying to have a rational back-and-forth discussion with aa.

And I don't think you should be quoting the NIV

aa5874

Don't you understand that I have ALREADY given my opinion on Romans 3.7 that it is an admission that "Paul" LIED for the Glory of God?

You have given your opnion and I do not agree with you based on what I KNOW and the evidence that I have seen.

You have got to move on.

You are wasting my time. You have NOT PRESENTED any credible evidence from antiquity to make me change my mind.

You must understand that there will ALWAYS be dis-agreements about ANY MATTER.

Even EXPERTS disagree about the very IDENTICAL data.

Again based on the ABUNDANCE of evidence from antiquity that I have gathered "Paul" is an ADMITTED LIAR.

By the way, there is NO need to make any promises that you cannot fulfill. You simply cannot provide any credible source of antiquity for your claims that Simon Magus was "Paul" and that Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos".

gurugeorge

No aa, I haven't got to do anything, and neither have you. But still, it would be nice if you could explain how the words "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner" are an admission of lying, in the following context:-

Please just read the whole passage. In context, it seems quite obvious that the words are part of an argument by the "Paul" writer, the total meaning of which is opposite from what you claim.

It seems obvious to me (and to avi, and to Doug, and to Toto, and no doubt to other observers), but I (and we) may be wrong. If so, please show how. Is that passage somehow not part of an argument, as it appears to be? If so, how?

Certainly, people may have different interpretations, and there may be different translations, but the point is you haven't defended your interpretation from my questioning of it, you haven't even begun to defend it. You hadn't even begun to defend it before I brought up SM=P.

And just to be extra clear: what I've been questioning hasn't been your overall thesis. As avi has pointed out, the question I've been asking is not whether your overall idea is true, but whether this bit of text supports it.

aa5874

Well, I am moving on while you remain STUCK.

avi

I think we ought to regard this sentence as the closest approximation to the medieval "I yield", as we are going to procure.

The topic here, judging an argument from silence, has received an appropriately silent response from aa in regard to addressing gurugeorge's excellent question. We must proceed now, with aa' silent reply, and then, hope that gurugeorge will accept this silent acknowledgement of error, so as to be able to proceed with the next question on the agenda, as Sheshbazzar has outlined:

In my opinion, we do need to move on, having received a silent acknowledgement of erroneous statement by aa5874. One hopes that this silent business is not contagious, else, the forum will become first a whisper, then a polite cough, and finally nothing more than a sideways glance. We need less silence, and more substance, in my view.

avi

Toto

Jake Jones' essay on Paul and Simon Magus has been split off here to its own thread.

aa5874

FANTASTIC!!!

Let us hear from gurugeorge since he was the one who initially INTRODUCED the ARGUMENT from SILENCE that Simon Magus the magician and occultist was Paul and that Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos".