gurugeorge

Why the hell would I need to show that?

What I'm saying is that there's no reason to disbelieve "Paul"'s report that "Christ" actually "spoke" to him and gave him the gospel. (Notice where I'm putting the scare quotes?) There's no reason to disbelieve that "Paul" is just sincerely reporting his subjective experience, which seemed real to him. People do have these kinds of experiences, of talking to gods and spirits, they're not uncommon. You could experience it too, with a week or two's experimentation.

But then, inevitably, whenever I've made this point in all our discussions, you come back to Romans 3:7, which you seem to believe is a plain admission of "Paul" that he "lied for God", thus casting doubt on even the possibility that he's sincerely reporting something that seemed subjectively real to him (even though we scientifically-informed people can understand what was really going on, i.e. that it was a hallucination of a certain type).

Now, Romans 3:7, goes as follows:-

So now, for the ninth time (or thereabouts), could you please kindly tell me where, in this passage (Romans 3:7) - not in countless other passages but in THIS passage - where you see "Paul" claiming that he "lied for God"?

aa5874

What nonsense. A visionary hallucination is not considered a figure of history.

Please, Please.

If Jesus Christ did exist he could have ONLY been human.

You seem not to understand that "Paul" was a LIAR based on the evidence from the very Pauline writings REGARDLESS of your interpretation of Romans 3.7.

You have PRESENTED an Argument from Silence.

You have NO evidence that "Paul" was truthful and you KNOW that a DEAD MAN could NOT have told "Paul" that he was BETRAYED in the Night after he had supped.

You MUST show or PROVIDE credible evidence from antiquity that "Paul" was TRUTHFUL in the Pauline writings or else I will maintain that "Paul" was a CONFESSED LIAR based on Romans 3.7, Galatians 1.1. Galatians 1.10-12, Galatians 4.4, 1 Cor 11.23-25, Romans 1.4, Romans 8.3-32 and Colossians 1.16.

Your opinion or anyone else's OPINION is NOT credible evidence from antiquity. Billions of people can have the same INTERPRETATION but have ZERO credible evidence for what they say about "Paul".

All I KNOW is that I have EVIDENCE from antiquity that PAUL was a LIAR.

I do NOT argue from Silence.

If Jesus Christ did EXIST he could ONLY have been human and "Paul" claimed he was NOT the Apostle of Man but Jesus Christ who was RAISED from the dead.

You ARGUE from SILENCE. You have NO CREDIBLE evidence from antiquity to support your interpretation of Romans 3.7.

And, I hope you have NOT forgotten that "Paul" was a LIAR if he was SIMON Magus as YOU have claimed.

I hope you have NOT forgotten the Pauline writings are a Pack of LIES if the author was REALLY Simon Magus the Magician as YOU have claimed.

avi

I don't criticise you lightly. I don't criticise you for claiming that "Paul" was a liar.

I simply do not accept the hypothesis, that Romans 3:7 supports a belief that Paul was dishonest.

As far as I am concerned "Paul" is absolutely NOT lying in Romans 3:7. He is also, in my opinion, NOT claiming to have lied in the past....

Romans 3:7 DOES contain the concept of dishonesty in speech.

That's for sure.

However, the author of Romans 3:7 is not 'boasting' of having lied in the past (ostensibly for the glory of god), but rather is making the point that
IF HE HAD LIED
about something, with good intentions, good ULTIMATE intentions, it would nevertheless be an act, in God's eyes, of disrepute, an act to be condemned, not praised, NO MATTER HOW SEEMINGLY beneficial to God's advantage, this singular act of lying may appear to have been....

In other words, gurugeorge, and Doug have both rightly taken issue with your claim that THIS passage, Romans 3:7, supports your hypothesis, that "Paul" is a liar.

Paul may well have been a liar, and you may be absolutely correct in your assessment of "Paul's" dishonesty, but, you cannot use Romans 3:7 as evidence of that trait, in my opinion, for the simple reason that the English in Romans 3:7 conveys a very different meaning, than that to which you ascribe. It does not convey, to a native speaker, the notion that Paul lied in the past.

avi

gurugeorge

What are you talking about? Of course a hallucination is not a figure of history! It's a hallucination.

In a hallucination or vision of X, there's no X, there just seems to be an X.

Someone who has a vision may think that what they are seeing is real, and believe sincerely that they are seeing it.

In view of this background (i.e. that these visions, experiences of seemingly-real things happen, that they're not all that uncommon), there is no particular reason to believe that "Paul" is lying about his own subjective experience, that it seemed to him that he was talking to a spiritual entity he called "Christ", who (he thought) once walked the earth, in human form.

There's no particular reason to believe that "Paul" is lying - not in the Corinthians passages you cite, nor in Galatians, nor in ... Romans 3:7.

Now, about that Romans 3:7. Here's the passage again, to refresh your memory:-

Now for going on the tenth time, could you kindly address the issue of where, in this particular passage, Romans 3:7, you see evidence that "Paul" is admitting he was lying?

Toto

This is why I think that aa5874 is not as fully fluent in English as he might seem.

Rom 3:7 is often misquoted as Paul claiming authority to lie, but anyone who reads it can see that Paul is saying that if he lied for a good cause, that would be justly condemned.

But how can you get through to someone that it's okay not to understand English?

gurugeorge

Yeah. His English is great on the whole - it puts me to shame that I can't speak his language as well as he can speak mine. But maybe it's just a little glitch in understanding - but if so, it's a crucial one, he does rely on Romans 3:7 lot and quote it a lot.

Or maybe it's just a reading he got at some time in the past, and has never really come back to question it.

This field of study is so vast, sometimes you have to put placeholders here and there, and hope to come back to them later. God knows, as an amateur without the relevant languages, my intellectual landscape on this is littered with placeholders, and I'm constantly on tenterhooks that some supposed fact I'm relying on in the course of my Heath Robinson contraption of a theory will turn out to be not a fact after all

aa5874

Well, once you are NOT criticizing me for claiming "Paul" was a LIAR then I have no problem at all.

People will always disagree on any matter.

It is MY OPINION that "PAUL" confessed to be a LIAR for the Glory of God in Romans 3.7 because it can be ACTUALLY shown that "Paul" LIED.

It is NO longer a matter of "IF PAUL LIED" it is that "PAUL" ACTUALLY LIED and it can be shown that he LIED for the Glory of God.

Well, I consider that "PAUL" KNEW he was ACTIVELY ENGAGED in LYING for the Glory when he wrote Romans 3.7.

Again, people will always disagree about any matter but there is evidence in the Pauline writings that "Paul" LIED for the Glory of God.

Both gurugeorge and Doug cannot demonstrate that "Paul" was truthful about Jesus and that is the ONLY way that they can show that my interpretation is wrong.

You MUST understand that if "Paul" was TRUTHFUL about Jesus Christ then Romans 3.7 cannot be a CONFESSION that he LIED for the Glory of God.

Now, on the other hand, you must understand, that if "Paul" was ACTIVELY ENGAGED in LYING for the Glory of God then Romans 3.7 may be considered a CONFESSION that he LIED for the Glory of God.

But, I have NOT used Romans 3.7 ALONE.

Do you NOT see that I have used 1 Cor 11, Galatians 1, Galatians 4, Colossians 1, Romans 1 and Romans 8?

Did you NOT see that I have used "First Apology" by Justin Martyr?

Did you NOT see that I have used "The Apology" by Aristides?

My OPINION on Romans 3.7 is NOT based on the SINGLE verse alone. It is from the ABUNDANCE of evidence from antiquity that I HAVE SEEN.

And, I don't even know what evidence you have seen. I can ONLY deal with the EVIDENCE that I have SEEN not with your OPINION.

I NO LONGER accept OPINIONS alone without EVIDENCE from Antiquity.

It is gurugeorge who CAN ONLY use Romans 3.7 because he has NOTHING else but his interpretation.

Now, why don't you CRITICISE gurugeorge for stating that Simon Magus was "Paul" but have NOT even produced a single shred of evidence from antiquity for such a claim?

Why don't you CRITICISE gurugeorge for stating that Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos" without a shred of credible evidence from antiquity?

Why don't you tell gurugeorge that if Simon Magus the Magician was "Paul" then it is IRRELEVANT whether or not Romans 3.7 is a confession since the ENTIRE Pauline writings would be a PACK of LIES?


Gurugeorge has presented an ARGUMENT from SILENCE to support the VERACITY of "Paul" and CANNOT ever find any actual evidence from antiquity to show "Paul" was truthful so CLINGS to Romans 3.7.

But, the interpretation of Romans 3.7 is IRRELEVANT now. According to gurugeorge Simon Magus the Magician was "Paul".

Gurugeorge has inadvertently CONFESSED that the PAULINE WRITINGS are a PACK of LIES for the Glory of God.

Look at the words of gurugeorge

The interpretation of Romans 3.7 is IRRELEVANT. The Pauline writings are a PACK of LIES for the Glory of God.

"Paul" was an OCCULTIST and MAGICIAN based on gurugeorge.

Gurugeorge has presented an ARGUMENT from Silence he cannot produce a shred of credible evidence for his claims about "Paul/Simon Magus/Paulos" and CLINGS to ONE VERSE.

aa5874

So, You see that people can DISAGREE on any matter. You think my ENGLISH is "great on the whole" but somehow, for some unknown "reason" Toto thinks differently.

And, my sources are in English so Toto probably don't even understand the ENGLISH of my sources.



It is YOU who RELY on Romans 3.7 and REPEAT it continuously.

But, I have the Pauline writings, and the writings of Christians to show "Paul" LIED for the Glory of God.

This is in ENGLISH. I hope you UNDERSTAND.

"First Apology" It was the 12 ILLITERATE from Jerusalem who PROCLAIMED the gospel to EVERY RACE of man, Not "Paul"

The Pauline writings are a PACK of LIES for the Glory of God based on my sources which have been translated to English.

Now, when will you give me, in ENGLISH, the sources of antiquity that show Simon Magus was "Paul", and that Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos"?

You PROMISED to deal with Simon Magus=Paul but have REMAINED SILENT.

EVERYONE can UNDERSTAND SILENCE in any language.

An argument from SILENCE does NOT need translators.

My sources that "Paul" lied for the Glory of God are written in ENGLISH.

Your sources for "Paul/Simon Magus/Paulos" are UNWRITTEN, SILENT, or cannot be found in any language of antiquity.

avi

Thank you for this bit of elaboration.

I like things simple, transparent, and obvious.

I dislike code, mysteries, and hand waving.

For me, this passage, Romans 3:7 is (to my simple way of thinking) a simple marketing prop.

I see "Paul" writing as if explaining to potential converts, what to do, and what not to do, as new members of this derivative religion.

I do not, (as a native speaker, but one who has no knowledge of either Koine Greek, or the christian faith,) understand this passage to indicate that Paul had once, (or more than once,) lied about something, in order to elevate the stature of God. "Paul's" manner of expression in this passage is very peculiar, in my opinion, since most mortal humans do not imagine themselves able to possess intimate knowledge of the mentation of a supernatural entity.

How could "Paul" possibly comprehend, with his little cerebral cortex, the thoughts of a supernatural power so thoroughly omniscient that it knows every hair on every person's head since time began?

In other words, aa, I believe that you err in citing this passage as evidence of Paul's dishonesty. I don't have, as previously mentioned, any quarrel with the notion that "Paul" was a liar. But, I cannot accept as valid, your statement quoted above, namely:

...that if "Paul" were TRUTHFUL about Jesus Christ, then Romans 3:7 cannot be a CONFESSION that he LIED for the Glory of God....

Why do I find your statement wrong? Romans 3:7 is NOT a confession of Paul's wrong-doing. This seems to be a stumbling block for you.

Whether or not Paul was a liar, (and I am quite willing to accept your hypothesis that he was dishonest), Romans 3:7 is not evidence of that trait.

It is irrelevant whether or not "Paul" had been truthful about his relationship (none) with JC, for, in this passage, Paul is simply warning new converts, or potential converts (i.e. folks with money), that the old ways of thinking and behaving had been superseded by a new philosophy:

Lying is wrong. Does not matter what end had been achieved by lying. Paul insists that humans cannot elevate the glory of god, in the eyes of the non-believer, by lying. One must be truthful, according to Paul, AT ALL COSTS, even if that honesty results in closing a church/temple, because of lack of funds, withheld because of the truth having been offered, instead of a bold lie....Paul argues here, that NO LIE is acceptable to god, no matter how potentially beneficial the end result of the lie.

The contrary perspective is the one with which we are more familiar: The bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ALSO killed thousands of allied prisoners, held in jails by the Japanese army. The big lie was that dropping the nuclear bombs SAVED USA soldiers' lives. The population had been literally starving to death, the military annhilated, Tokyo had been firebombed to oblivion, the whole city reduced to ashes, and here's our government telling everyone that the nuclear bombs saved lives. Of course not. We live with this flagrant dishonesty every day. The USA government proclaimed that the deaths of a few innocents, saving the lives of the many, justified dropping the bombs. Apparently, that was also the modus vivendi back in Paul's time, too, since the purpose of this passage, Romans 3:7, is to explain that:

'we christians don't engage in that behaviour, i.e. justifying "collateral damage", by deliberate misrepresentation of the truth.'

That's all he is writing, aa, Romans 3:7 is not a passage written to reveal Paul's having been dishonest in his previous letters....

avi

aa5874

Please give me the following details.

1. When was Romans 3.7 actually written?

I need EVIDENCE from antiquity to support what you say.

Again, I NO longer ACCEPT OPINION without credible evidence from antiquity.

Based on Justin Martyr, Aristides and Arnobius the Pauline Epistles were NOT known to have been written and there was NO character called "PAUL" who wrote to CONVERTS BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Now, please tell me WHEN did the "CONVERTS" receive their Epistle called Romans and saw Romans 3.7?

You MUST tell me the evidence from antiquity that can corroborate Romans 3.7.

Do you have the SLIGHTEST evidence from antiquity for "Paul"?

There were Christians writers who did NOT.


I do not do HISTORY by ISOLATION.

I used MANY SOURCES from antiquity.

Well, it is IMPERATIVE that you tell me when "Paul" made these claims. Was "Paul" ACTIVELY ENGAGED in LYING for the Glory of God when he wrote Romans 3.7.

If "Paul" wrote Romans in the 2nd century then would NOT "Paul" be LYING for the Glory of God?

According to the Church "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke but it has been DEDUCED that gLuke was written AFTER "Paul" was supposed to be DEAD.

The very first mention of gLuke was in the last quarter of the 2nd century and remarkably "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke.

See Church History 3.4.8 and 2.25.