gurugeorge

Yes, you can say the same thing, but I'm asking you to show me how and why I am misintepreting that passage. I asked you first, I asked you like six or seven posts ago, and I'm still asking you, to justify your belief that you are interpreting the passage correctly.

This is not a tu quoque game aa, this is a rational discussion. We are rational people, we are supposed to be able to have reasons for our beliefs. What is your reason for thinking that Romans 3:7 shows "Paul" saying he lied for the Lord, when the clear meaning of the passage seems to be that he was doing nothing of the kind, and that he was in fact denying the validity of such a tactic?

Here it the passage again:-

So, how is my interpretation, highlighted by my bolding, that there is NO ADMISSION OF LYING HERE, wrong?

Show me, don't just assert it.

And show me from the passage itself, not by bringing in other passages from other bits of the Epistles, just deal with this passage.

The other passages may or may not be EXAMPLES OF LYING, but why is THIS passage an ADMISSION OF LYING?

To me, the translation shows quite clearly that there is no admission of lying.

Is it a bad translation? Can it be translated in other ways?

Where is my interpetation OF THIS PASSAGE, not other passages like Corinthians, etc., but THIS PASSAGE, which under YOUR INTERPRETATION, is an CLAIM BY "PAUL" THAT HE LIED, going wrong?

aa5874

I have ALREADY shown that "Paul" was a LIAR for the Glory of God and that he Confessed he was a LIAR.

You have NOT been able to show "PAUL/Simon Magus/Paulos" was TRUTHFUL with respect to anything he claimed about Jesus.

Look at some MORE PAULINE LIES for the Glory of God.

If Jesus existed he could have been ONLY human.

Galatians 1 These are some of the LIES of "PAUL". The Pauline writer either INVENTED his gospel or used some written or oral source. "Paul" got NOTHING from a resurrected dead.

There are NO such things as a resurrected dead that can TEACH "Paul" a Gospel.

I will KEEP on SHOWING you the LIES of Paul from sources of antiquity, the NT Canon, but you CAN'T show a credible historical source that claimed Simon Magus was "Paul" or that Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos".



You are ASSERTING your interpretation is right but can't show that "Paul/Simon Magus/Paulos" was TRUTHFUL about anything with respect to Jesus.

Once you can SHOW that "Paul/Simon Magus/Paulos was TRUTHFUL then your interpretation may make sense otherwise you are wasting time.

I can SHOW that "Paul" LIED for the Glory of God so my interpretation of Romans 3.7 is confirmed.

"Paul" made FALSE claims about Jesus so that Jesus would be GLORIFIED as a God or the Son of God.

I have MY interpretation of Romans 3.7 and you have YOURS NOW you must prove or demonstrate that "PAUL/SIMON MAGUS/PAULOS" did NOT LIE for the Glory of God.

But, you CAN'T even PROVE that your INTERPRETATION of Romans 3.7 is Valid because you KNOW that "PAUL" LIED for the Glory of God.

If Jesus Christ did EXIST he could have ONLY been human this means that The Pauline writings about the resurrected Jesus are a PACK of LIES for the Glory of God.

Now, tell me the source of antiquity which shows that Simon Magus was "Paul" or was NICKNAMED "Paulos".

You CAN'T do HISTORY from Silence.

You can't tell me Simon Magus was Paul when all you have is SILENCE.

You can't tell me Simon Mgus was NICKNAMED "Paulos" when all you have is SILENCE.

You can't tell me Justin Martyr was LYING about the disciples when all you have is Silence.

I ONLY NEED credible evidence from antiquity for what you say. That is ALL.

gurugeorge

*sigh* OK let's take it even slower.

Here's the passage again, for your reminder. Romans 3:7, the lynchpin of your argument:-

Please re-read the bolded words - HOW DO THOSE BOLDED WORDS REPRESENT A CLAIM BY "PAUL" THAT HE IS LYING?

Please explain it to me.

Doug Shaver

Oh, oh, oh, I get it!

Anybody who says "If A then B" is affirming A.

Well, aren't they?

gurugeorge

You know I swear, sometimes I think aa is a Randian Objectivist (not that I don't have a soft spot for the old Russian speedfreak).

avi

You and gurugeorge are correct. aa5874 has slightly erred here.

Here are the relevant passages:
The context of the entire passage makes clear that Paul is not confessing to having lied for god's benefit, but rather has explained that if he had done so, it would have reflected badly on him, Paul, rather than assisting mankind to better appreciate the glory of god...

I have some questions:

a. God of gentiles? What about heathen? Is there a distinction then, in Paul's mind, between the non-believers, versus the pagans of Greek ancestry?

b. At the time of Paul, the silk route was active. There would have been interaction with folks from the East. They were certainly, at that time, non-believers, and also ethnically distinct from the European model. Are they, inhabitants of Babylon, Persia, India, China, et al, to be regarded as "gentiles"? Isn't Paul here, in effect, explaining what the Europeans later enacted, in conquering, if nowhere else, at least, North America, murdering, and enslaving the local population, treating them, still today, I fear, as non-human?

c. How does anyone read this passage, and not walk away with the distinct impression that "Paul" imagines himself a spokesperson for god ("I speak like men do").....Why isn't this entire passage regarded as a simple affirmation of delusion (of grandeur)?

avi

gurugeorge

Well it might be - more likely, it's just a manifestation of his sincerely-held belief, since "Christ" actually "spoke" to him and gave him the gospel.

It's not that difficult to speak to gods and get messages from them. A few weeks' or months' practice with lucid dreaming or occult "astral travelling" techniques will get you there. Anybody can do it, even sceptics - although some people are more "naturals" than others (just like with playing musical instruments, athletics, etc.).

And everyone who's interested in religion should do it, in the spirit of participatory anthropology. One simply has no clue what the real root of religion and religious ideas is, until one has experienced that sort of thing.

Religion as text worship, proto-philosophy and social glue are much further down the line than this.

(An alternative entry point, if you're lucky enough to live near a university that's experimenting in this area, would be the types of experiments being undertaken nowadays into body image, OOBEs and the like.)

At any rate, surely we can forgive people living hundreds and thousands of years ago (without the benefit of a modern scientific outlook), or their analogues in the world nowadays, for being subjectively convinced by these types of experiences and founding religions based on them?

"Paul" is just another one of those types of players. The "Christ" he's talking about is a hallucination of this type, not necessarily pathological, but obviously subjectively real to him.

And it's the reason "Paul" talks at length about this type of entity, and is silent on a human "Jesus".

aa5874

1. I told you ALREADY that you have NO credible evidence from antiquity that Simon Magus was "Paul" and that Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos".

You have presented an Argument from SILENCE for your "Paul/Simon Magus/Paulos"

2. I told you ALREADY that when you claimed Justin Martyr was LYING because there was NO archaeological historical evidence for the disciples that you have made "Paul" a Liar since there is NO archaeological historical evidence from antiquity for the Pauline Jesus.

Look at your own statement, your own words, that made "Paul" a LIAR as you claimed for Justin Martyr.

"Paul" was a LIAR since "we have no external evidence that supports the Pauline Jesus".

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

The Pauline writings are a PACK of LIES for the Glory of God as soon as he claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a Man but of Jesus Christ who was RAISED from the dead and when "Paul" claimed that he RECEIVED from the Lord Resurrected Jesus that he was BETRAYED in the Night after he HAD SUPPED.

You have an ARGUMENT of Silence. You cannot move from Romans 3.7. You cannot SHOW that "Paul" was TRUTHFUL by using credible evidence from antiquity.

You are LIMITED by your own interpretation of a SINGLE verse and cannot show "Paul" was truthful..

Please SHOW that "Paul" was TRUTHFUL using evidence from antiquity. You cannot USE SILENCE.

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

"Paul" is a CONFESSED LIAR for the Glory of God. See 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

gurugeorge

No, he could have been a visionary hallucination of "Paul"'s. But you refuse to accept this possibility, and to support your refusal to countenance the possibility of visionary experience, you inevitably (in all our conversations on this subject, IIRC) come back to Romans 3:7 as being a plain confession, by "Paul", that he is a liar.

So: Romans 3:7, I remind you, goes as follows:-

So I ask you again, now for something like the eighth time, where, in the above passage, is there a confession by "Paul" that he is lying?

Also confer avi's and Doug's posts above. That's now two other people on this thread who are reading the passage in the same way as me - NOT as a confession of lying, but as the very opposite, as a DENIAL OF THE VALIDITY OF THE TACTIC OF "LYING FOR GOD."

So, again, how are you construing that passage as an admission by "Paul" that he "lied for God"? What, in those words, in the words in Romans 3:7, suggests this interpretation to you?

Alternatively, please show if and how that translation is wrong or misleading, and please show that and how a correct translation would show that "Paul" is admitting that he "lied for God" in that passage, in Romans 3:7.

Or show that and how I, and Doug, and avi, are misreading the passage (i.e. Romans 3:7).

aa5874

Again, you CANNOT even begin to show that "CHRIST actually "spoke to him and gave him the gospel.".

You are CLEARLY OBSESSED with your imagination.

Even if Jesus Christ did ACTUALLY exist you CANNOT show that a DEAD MAN could have "SPOKEN" to "Paul".

It is MOST LIKELY that "Paul" INVENTED his Gospel and then claimed he Got it from JESUS CHRIST who was RAISED from the dead.

No human being was RAISED from the dead.

How many times must you be told that an actual DEAD Jesus Christ can speak to NO-ONE and could NOT resurrect?

You will NOT find any credible corroborative sources for "Paul" since his claims about Jesus Christ just cannot be PROVEN to be true.

How do you INTEND to corroborate the VERACITY of "Paul"?

You cannot use an Argument of SILENCE.