gurugeorge

What are you talking about? I don't "rely" on it at all, I'm just waiting for you to respond to my questions about it. Romans 3:7 is of no importance to me in terms of my theory. You are the one who relies on it, you are the one who brings it up in post after post on this board, when people talk to you about "Paul".

Do you think nobody's paying attention to your posts?

Yes, AFTER you answer my question, which I asked you first, a few posts before you started questioning my Simon Magus=Paulos idea; and I have asked you this question now (I think) about eleven times, still without any answer.

And that question is: where in Romans 3:7 is the evidence that "Paul" admits he was lying?

Just to remind you, here it is again. Please show me where (in the following passage, not in other passages, but in this passage, Romans 3:7), "Paul" says he lied. Please explain to me how you see him admitting he is lying in THIS passage:-

aa5874

What nonsense. You are STUCK on Romans 3.7.

Do you NOT even understand that "PAUL" wrote NOTHING to any ROMANS?

Don't you even UNDERSTAND that Christian writers like Justin Martyr, Aristides and Arnobius have written statements that show that it was BELIEVED that it was the 12 ILLITERATE disciples that PREACHED the Gospel to EVERY RACE of Men.

"PAUL" WROTE NOTHING to Any Romans. "PAUL" was probably WRITING Romans 3.7 to HIMSELF and giving the FALSE IMPRESSION that he was writing to ROMANS.

Don't you UNDERSTAND that "PAUL" was ALIVE AFTER he was supposed to be DEAD.

Look at the EVIDENCE from antiquity.

Church History 3.4.8
This is the evidence from "First Apology"XXXIX
This is in the evidence in "The Apology" by Aristides
This is the evidence from Arnobius in "Against the Heathen" 1 The evidence from CHRISTIAN writers suggest that "PAUL" was NOT KNOWN to have written any Epistle to the Romans or any Epistle at all BEFORE the Fall of the Temple or preached to people ALL over the Roman Empire Before the death of Nero.

"PAUL" was a DECEIVER and an IMPERSONATOR. He was NOT an Apostle and it was "PAUL" who REALLY was the ONE that was LYING for the Glory of God not the Ghost Roman Converts.

The evidence from the Christian writers Justin Martyr, Aristides and Arnobius tend to show that "PAUL" wrote "Romans" perhaps AFTER the end of the 3rd century.

But, YOU ARE STUCK on Romans 3.7 and think that it represents historical events and REFUSE to tell us your sources for your claims that Simon Magus the Magician and OCCULTIST was "Paul" and that Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos".

You have PRESENTED AN argument from SILENCE for "PAUL/Simon Magus/Paulos".

avi

Thank you aa5874. I appreciate your taking the time, and making the effort to respond to each of us, who have been trying to pin you down on this single issue, Romans 3:7.

I recognize, and acknowledge that your previous comment, a few posts earlier, was well done, i.e. that you rely upon many different sources, to arrive at a conclusion that Paul was dishonest.

To repeat myself, in the interests of avoiding misunderstanding, I am not writing today to criticize your fundamental notion: that Paul's epistles represent a compendium of a dishonest nonsense.

I am writing to ask you to simply address gurugeorge's comment. Gurugeorge has not written in anger, or hostility, but rather, as a friend, seeking to assist you, in understanding the admittedly arcane English of this particular passage.

It is imperative, in my opinion, that you acknowledge, having simply misunderstood the peculiar English in Romans 3:7. The alternative is to appear, (contrary to the fact, from the perspective of those of us who admire your scholarship and attention to detail,) as someone unwilling to confront and acknowledge an occasional error.....(You have read enough of spin's posts to understand my meaning here.....)

I deny that gurugeorge is "stuck on Romans 3:7." In my opinion, he was absolutely correct to point out your misunderstanding of the English text of this passage. He was seeking to assist you, not to impede your progress in elaborating the history of the early church. Upon recognizing that anyone can err, even you, on occasion, then we move on, and you will surely be encouraged to confront gurugeorge's having not yet clarified, to your satisfaction, your very reasonable questions about "Simon Magus, and Paulos".

Absent such acknowledgement, one is dissuaded from engaging in dialogue, (and the forum itself suffers as a consequence), for it then appears that this particular forum member (i.e. YOU, aa5874) has no interest in engaging in constructive debate, but rather simply hopes to issue a hue and cry, about this or that favorite topic...

I know that is not the case. I know that you have a great knowledge of the bible and the "church fathers", and I admire and respect that knowledge. I am asking you, most humbly, to simply attribute this situation to an English problem, and move on..... None of us will think any the less of you, for acknowledging having not previously understood a specific, confusing, English passage....Romans 3:7 cannot be employed to identify dishonesty by anyone.

avi

jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874 Quote: Originally Posted by jakejonesiv Hello aa5784, Have you really considered what you have just written? I don't necessarily disagree, but your requires explanation. Why do you believe that Marcion's Phantom Son of God was believed to have to come from Capernaum from heaven without birth in the 15th of the reign of Tiberius?" Did a Ghost and a Virgin tell you or can you supply a text that supports your beliefs? When was this text written, by whom, and why do you believe it accurately represents your assertions? Jake Jones IV You do not appear to understand the difference between WRITTEN INFORMATION from antiquity and BELIEF. An accurate description of Superman does not require that I BELIEVE in Superman or the Superman stories. The description of Superman in any comic book CANNOT be altered or changed. It is cast in STONE A description of Marcion's phantom does not require that I believe in Marcion's MYTH fable. The description of Marcion's PHANTOM in any version cannot be altered or changed. You must undestand that MYTH characters have CLEAR descriptions that cannot be ALTERED even though considered fiction. That is why Superman is different to Spiderman even though fictional. It is the UNIQUE characteristics and unique attributes of each MYTH character that makes them different to other MYTHS. Jesus was described as the Child of a Ghost and a Virgin and the PHANTOM as a Son of a God that ONLY seemed real. I considered that Jesus was just a MYTH Fable as described in the NT Canon just as the Phantom was a Myth fable from Marcion. An "historical Jesus" cannot be historicized from SILENCE.

I did not ask you about comic books.
I did not ask you if marcion's phantom were true or not. (there is no such thing as a phantom son of god)
I asked you upon which texts you base your opinion that "Marcion's Phantom Son of God was believed to have to come from Capernaum from heaven without birth in the 15th of the reign of Tiberius." If you can't cite a text, just admit that you don't have any basis for your assertions.

Best Regards,
Jake

aa5874

I am surprised that you are NOT familiar with the texts that claimed Marcion's Phantom Son of God came down from heaven to Capernaum in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

"Against Marcion" 4.7

aa5874

You can't pin me down on anything. You have already given your opinion of Romans 3.7 and I have given mine. It should be OBVIOUS that my opinion on Romans 3.7 is NOT BASED solely on the passage itself but on other evidence that I have seen that you may not be aware of.

Now, it is time to move on to the UNSUBSTANTIATED claims, the ARGUMENTS from SILENCE, by gurugeorge that Simon Magus the magician and occultist was "Paul and that Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos".

I will tell you IN ADVANCE that I don't expect any one to "PIN DOWN" gurugeorge with HIS argument from SILENCE.

gurugeorge

Nope, just waiting for you to respond to my question about it, which you've ignored now for going on the twelfth or thirteenth time.

Uh, yeah, sure, of course he may not have written to any Romans. Could quite easily be just a tag someone put on the writing.

What does that have to do with the price of cheese?

You are the one who has been relying on this passage to support your claim. I'm questioning your reliance on this passage. Please deal with it.

Please address the issue of why you think Romans 3:7 supports your claim that "Paul" (or whoever the writer was) lied.

Never mind all the other passages you think support your claim, please deal with THIS passage that you think supports your claim.

Here's the passage again, just to refresh your memory:-

So, now for the twelfth or thirteenth time: in what way is the above passage - not the multitude of other passages you often quote, but the above passage - evidence that "Paul" lied?

How does this passage support your overall argument, where do you see an admission of lying in this passage?

jakejonesiv

Dear AA,

Thank you!!! Just answering the question was not so hard, was it?

Jake

ƃuoɹʍ llɐ ʇno əɯɐɔ ʇɐɥʇ

jakejonesiv

Hi George,

The group represented by "Paul" had been accused of lying. "We are slanderously reported and some claim that we say, Let us do evil that good may come". Romans 3:8. Regardless of the rhetorical phrasing of
Rom. 3:7, the charge is on the table.

There are other explicit denials of of the charge of lying in Gal. 1:20 and 2 Cor. 11:21, so this was not a unique situation.

Was the charge justified? Certainly there is a degree of expediency, if not outright deception, in such statements as "To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law ... I have become all things to all men." 1 Corinthians 9:20, 22.

Jake Jones IV

Sheshbazzar

Some cults and sects are extremely exclusionary. If one is perceived to be an 'outsider' or of a differing cult or sect, all discussion and communication on religious matters is shut down.
Some are so indoctrinated into their own particular cultic or sectarian biases, that they refuse to speak at all to 'outsiders', and any attempts at even simple friendly conversation are quickly rebuffed, politely or impolitely.

Having acquaintances, friends, and family members who are Jewish, Christian, and Muslim, I can well understand where Paul is coming from in that statement.
To maintain friendly relations with the 'hardcore' within each faction requires knowing and being respectful of their ways and their peculiarities, and when with -them-, acting and speaking within the confines of what that particular faction deems acceptable, while avoiding speaking badly of any.
(being a member of their extended family is a great help, as it facilitates a level of admittance, tolerance, politeness that is often denied to total strangers. )
It takes careful, considerate, and always polite social skills to detect in advance, and to carefully avoid the many 'tests' and entrapment's that each faction will attempt to lure one into, to force you to take side against 'the others'.
The trick is in avoiding giving any needless offense to the faction present, while also not feeding any feelings of ill will towards the others. Or saying anything that can be used as 'evidence' in a latter attack against 'the others'.

When with my Jewish friends and relatives, I conform to Jewish customs and observances, although it is known to them that know me, that I am not a Jew.
When I am with my Christian friends and relatives, I conform to Christian customs and observances, although it is known to them that know me, that I am not a Christian.
When I am with my Muslim friends and relatives, I conform to Muslin customs and observances, although it is known to them that know me, that I am not a Muslim.
Thus, at proper times, I hold my tongue and do not speak, and am careful to refrain from joining in or participating in whatever it is that is forbidden to one who is not of that faith.
Always, I am a polite guest, and thus am often mistaken by those who do not know my mind, for a member of whatever factions table it is that I might be dining at.
There is no willful deceit involved. As I never go where I am not invited.
And being invited, I am therefore a guest, to be treated with that polite courtesy and tolerance afforded to invited guests.

I have my own beliefs and convictions, but have proven able to get along well with most people of good-will regardless of their religious or ethnic backgrounds.
I also... become all things to all men.

Now admittedly some people are very ill-mannered, and with a 'holier than thou' attitude, do rudely seek to dominate others, and to force confrontations and accusations.
These I quickly excuse myself from, decline all their invitations, and keep no company with.