Author Topic: Romans 16  (Read 32622 times)

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33072
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #75 on: July 29, 2016, 04:04:46 PM »
It was in Richard Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Christ".
Is that the one with the marvellous recipe for Hoi sin sauce?

Brownie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3858
  • Faith evolves
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #76 on: July 29, 2016, 04:09:57 PM »
What did god do that was good? I have asked that question many times and never had an answer!

I fear that whatever examples are given you will reject them, floo, but here is something that always 'speaks' to me:

1 Kings 19:4-8New International Version (NIV)

4 while he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness. He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. “I have had enough, Lord,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” 5 Then he lay down under the bush and fell asleep.

All at once an angel touched him and said, “Get up and eat.” 6 He looked around, and there by his head was some bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and then lay down again.

7 The angel of the Lord came back a second time and touched him and said, “Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.” 8 So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God.

Let us profit by what every day and hour teaches us

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #77 on: July 29, 2016, 04:10:30 PM »
Hope,

Quote
In fact, you've had the answer on a number of occasions from a number of people, both here and elsewhere, and you have promptly shut up shop, gone silent for a month or two, then opened a new thread asking the same question.

Whoa there Sparky. WHOA THERE!

Are you seriously accusing someone else of this behaviour? Someone else?

Seriously?

Seriously seriously?

Seriously seriously seriously?

Wow.

Just wow.

(Did I mention "wow" there?)

Never has by flabber been so gasted...

...I need a lie down. Nurse! The screens please!
"Don't make me come down there."

God

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33072
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #78 on: July 29, 2016, 04:24:31 PM »
Hope,

Whoa there Sparky. WHOA THERE!

Are you seriously accusing someone else of this behaviour? Someone else?

Seriously?

Seriously seriously?

Seriously seriously seriously?


Bzzzzzzzzzzz. Repetition of the word ''seriously''.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #79 on: July 29, 2016, 04:27:17 PM »
Vlad,

Quote
Bzzzzzzzzzzz. Repetition of the word ''seriously''.

Given the jaw-dropping, buttock-clenching, goggle-eyed with incredulity hypocrisy of Hope's post Nicholas Parsons said I could have a special exemption just this once.
"Don't make me come down there."

God

Brownie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3858
  • Faith evolves
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #80 on: July 29, 2016, 05:01:07 PM »
I know what I mean by "hypocrisy" but as words often have more than one, and sometimes obscure, meanings, I looked it up.

Dictionary:  hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi/Submit
noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk;

Wiki:  Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretense, sham. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one’s own expressed moral rules and principles.
------

I cannot, and do not mean "will not", see Hope as a hypocrite.  He strikes me as being quite sincere.
Let us profit by what every day and hour teaches us

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #81 on: July 29, 2016, 05:05:39 PM »
Brownie,

Quote
I cannot, and do not mean "will not", see Hope as a hypocrite.  He strikes me as being quite sincere.

They're not contradictory - it's quite possible to be sincerely hypocritical, but hypocritical nonetheless.
"Don't make me come down there."

God

Étienne d'Angleterre

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #82 on: July 29, 2016, 05:22:11 PM »
I know what I mean by "hypocrisy" but as words often have more than one, and sometimes obscure, meanings, I looked it up.

Dictionary:  hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi/Submit
noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk;

Wiki:  Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretense, sham. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one’s own expressed moral rules and principles.
------

I cannot, and do not mean "will not", see Hope as a hypocrite.  He strikes me as being quite sincere.

 "It is the practice of engaging in the same behaviour or activity for which one criticizes another"

Which is exactly what he has just done.

Hence the charge.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33072
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #83 on: July 29, 2016, 05:53:07 PM »
Vlad,

Given the jaw-dropping, buttock-clenching, goggle-eyed with incredulity hypocrisy of Hope's post Nicholas Parsons said I could have a special exemption just this once.
Ok then you have thirty seconds remaining on the subject of Antitheist showboating on the Religionethics forum.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #84 on: July 29, 2016, 06:01:06 PM »
Vlad,

Quote
Ok then you have thirty seconds remaining on the subject of Antitheist showboating on the Religionethics forum.

Will you buzz me for talking about atheism rather than anti-theism though seeing as how you consistently confuse the two?
"Don't make me come down there."

God

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33072
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #85 on: July 29, 2016, 06:19:30 PM »
Vlad,

Will you buzz me for talking about atheism rather than anti-theism though seeing as how you consistently confuse the two?
Sorry. Hesistation.

That gives me twenty five seconds on antitheist showboating.........

''Richard Dawkins,Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Steven Laws, Jerry Coyne................''

Ricky Spanish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3016
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #86 on: July 29, 2016, 08:39:13 PM »
I am asking for evidence that Timothy (1 & 2) was written: "by someone who had never met Paul, let alone Jesus". 
Welllllll..

How familiar with Paul and his style of writing?

Do you agree that there is only 7 letters that are universally agreed as being written by Paul?

All the rest are forgeries claiming to be by Pauls' hand. The Tims being classed as forgeries.

I mean to be fair - 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are certainly speaking about certain situations, and they contain many specifics.

Unfortunately for "apologetics", the problem is that some of the details do not match up well with what we know of Paul from his universal accepted authentic letters.

What has been noticed about these texts is they do seem to match the context of Christian communities that existed sixty-plus years after Paul’s death.
For example, the writer of the Pastorals presupposes the existence of church offices, such as bishop, elder, and deacon, in which lay authority to rule over the community. 

This sort of structural authority appears in the writings of proto-orthodox figures of the second century, such as Ignatius of Antioch.

In 1 Timothy and Titus, the author writes to a person who has been ordained (i.e., Timothy or Titus) and to whom the authority to appoint others to church offices has been given.

Paul wrote to communities at large when he wanted to instruct people on how to resolve their conflicts, not to specially designated persons.

While writings that come from the second century also reflect the existence of ecclesiastical offices, Paul’s letters indicate that he had no interest in establishing the institutionalised authority of this sort. Instead, Paul stressed that people had different gifts and talents, and thus he recognised that people could be assigned different roles and responsibilities in the church.

Paul did not, however, establish a hierarchy nor did he ordain people to preestablished offices; rather he allowed people to evolve organically into certain roles.

Which makes it dubious that Paul wrote the Tims and was more likely constructed decades after his death.

UNDERSTAND - I MAKE OPINIONS. IF YOUR ARGUMENTS MAKE ME QUESTION MY OPINION THEN I WILL CONSIDER THEM.

Brownie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3858
  • Faith evolves
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #87 on: July 29, 2016, 09:15:11 PM »
Interesting Thrud.  I thought, or at least I was taught and read, that Tertius 'ghost wrote' what Paul dictated, at the end of which Paul added a few words of greeting or encouragement.  I'm quite happy to be wrong about that.
Let us profit by what every day and hour teaches us

Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25569
    • Tools With A Mission
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #88 on: July 29, 2016, 10:04:06 PM »
Welllllll..

How familiar with Paul and his style of writing?

Do you agree that there is only 7 letters that are universally agreed as being written by Paul?
I'm aware of all that

Quote
All the rest are forgeries claiming to be by Pauls' hand. The Tims being classed as forgeries
Wrong.  None of the others are forgeries. It was quite a common practice for material of the 1st Century (and not merely religoious writers) to be ascribed, either by the author or by 3rd parties, to someone well-known.  It was so common that there is even a term for it - pseudoepigraphia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha

They are officially deemed distinct from forgeries since the latter is always based on the author's own ascription, whilst the former may be ascription by 3rd parties.

Quote
What has been noticed about these texts is they do seem to match the context of Christian communities that existed sixty-plus years after Paul’s death.
For example, the writer of the Pastorals presupposes the existence of church offices, such as bishop, elder, and deacon, in which lay authority to rule over the community.
What has also been noticed by scholars is that the various 'office' terminology existed at the same time as Jesus was alive, so are by no means indicative of late Early church practice.  They are Greek words with distinct secular meanings that were taken on by early Christians. 

Quote
This sort of structural authority appears in the writings of proto-orthodox figures of the second century, such as Ignatius of Antioch.

In 1 Timothy and Titus, the author writes to a person who has been ordained (i.e., Timothy or Titus) and to whom the authority to appoint others to church offices has been given.
Oddly enough, this same perogative had been practised as early as Acts, when the apostles called the 7, one of whom was Stephen

Quote
Paul wrote to communities at large when he wanted to instruct people on how to resolve their conflicts, not to specially designated persons.
Not debating that, though its interesting that Hebrews - an epistle of just this sort - is also not regarded as one of his, suggesting that the easy delineation you outline isn't necessarily that simple.

Quote
While writings that come from the second century also reflect the existence of ecclesiastical offices, Paul’s letters indicate that he had no interest in establishing the institutionalised authority of this sort. Instead, Paul stressed that people had different gifts and talents, and thus he recognised that people could be assigned different roles and responsibilities in the church.
Unfortunately for this particular argument, bishops and other such 'posts' likely existed long before the second century, just having a different meaning to what we understand by them.  Even your 2nd century references refer to posts and roles that are very different to what we currently understand them to be.

Quote
Paul did not, however, establish a hierarchy nor did he ordain people to preestablished offices; rather he allowed people to evolve organically into certain roles.
Do you have any evidence that Ignatius or any of those early Church Fathers were ordained, in the sense we mean?  Remember that ordination was a very common rite within Roman society and had been for many years before the Christians appeared on the scene http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2013/04/history-ordination-part-i.html

Quote
Which makes it dubious that Paul wrote the Tims and was more likely constructed decades after his death.
Not sure that your initial comment is questioned by many people; on the other hand, the relevant language of the Tims, etc. would have been common even during Jesus' and Paul's lifetimes.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 10:07:09 PM by Hope »
Are your, or your friends'/relatives', garages, lofts or sheds full of unused DIY gear, sewing/knitting machines or fabric and haberdashery stuff?

Lists of what is needed and a search engine to find your nearest collector (scroll to bottom for latter) are here:  http://www.twam.uk/donate-tools

Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25569
    • Tools With A Mission
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #89 on: July 29, 2016, 10:08:39 PM »
Interesting Thrud.  I thought, or at least I was taught and read, that Tertius 'ghost wrote' what Paul dictated, at the end of which Paul added a few words of greeting or encouragement.  I'm quite happy to be wrong about that.
Whilst I was taught that Luke may well have acted as scribe for Paul.  Perhaps they were one and the same   ;)
Are your, or your friends'/relatives', garages, lofts or sheds full of unused DIY gear, sewing/knitting machines or fabric and haberdashery stuff?

Lists of what is needed and a search engine to find your nearest collector (scroll to bottom for latter) are here:  http://www.twam.uk/donate-tools

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #90 on: July 29, 2016, 10:30:16 PM »
Hope,

I see that you've accused someone else of avoiding questions, going quiet for a bit and then popping up with the same mistakes. As it seems to have slipped your mind can i remind you that over on the "Answers to Prayers?" thread I took the time to rebut your various mistakes (Replies 36 - 39 from memory) only for you to ignore those rebuttals. Later on you complained that you couldn't be expected to trawl through looking for them, so I took the time to post again to tell you where they are.

I see that you ignored that post too. Can we now look forward therefore you going quiet for a bit and then popping up only to repeat the same mistakes as before?

Again?

Ta.
"Don't make me come down there."

God

Brownie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3858
  • Faith evolves
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #91 on: July 29, 2016, 11:09:09 PM »
Whilst I was taught that Luke may well have acted as scribe for Paul.  Perhaps they were one and the same   ;)

Well, we don't know Hope, it is church tradition that Tertius of Iconium wrote s(,, Luke the Evangelist wrote Acts.  It doesn't matter that much, at least I don't think so.  What is said is more important than who put pen to paper (or, more precisely, papyrus).  You are probably more up to date than I with current Biblical scholarship.

(Blue, sorry to interrupt your conversation with Hope, I just wanted to respond to this particular post.)
Let us profit by what every day and hour teaches us

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32121
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #92 on: July 30, 2016, 04:01:02 AM »
Wrong.  None of the others are forgeries.

They were clearly intended to be passed off as the work of Paul. Therefore they are forgeries.

Quote
It was quite a common practice for material of the 1st Century (and not merely religoious writers) to be ascribed, either by the author or by 3rd parties, to someone well-known.

It may have been common but it was not considered OK to do it.
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

Brownie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3858
  • Faith evolves
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #93 on: July 30, 2016, 07:17:44 AM »
I understand it was acceptable, sometimes normal practice, for religious writers to employ scribes.
Let us profit by what every day and hour teaches us

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33072
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #94 on: July 30, 2016, 08:22:35 AM »
Hope,

I see that you've accused someone else of avoiding questions, going quiet for a bit and then popping up with the same mistakes. As it seems to have slipped your mind can i remind you that over on the "Answers to Prayers?" thread I took the time to rebut your various mistakes (Replies 36 - 39 from memory) only for you to ignore those rebuttals. Later on you complained that you couldn't be expected to trawl through looking for them, so I took the time to post again to tell you where they are.

I see that you ignored that post too. Can we now look forward therefore you going quiet for a bit and then popping up only to repeat the same mistakes as before?

Again?

Ta.
Bzzzzzzzzz     Deviation............................Derail.............................Bulverism.

floo

  • Guest
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #95 on: July 30, 2016, 08:29:40 AM »
I fear that whatever examples are given you will reject them, floo, but here is something that always 'speaks' to me:

1 Kings 19:4-8New International Version (NIV)

4 while he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness. He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. “I have had enough, Lord,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” 5 Then he lay down under the bush and fell asleep.

All at once an angel touched him and said, “Get up and eat.” 6 He looked around, and there by his head was some bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and then lay down again.

7 The angel of the Lord came back a second time and touched him and said, “Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.” 8 So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God.

If the sky fairy could do that for one person, how come there are so many people starving in this world?

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33072
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #96 on: July 30, 2016, 08:30:57 AM »
If the sky fairy could do that for one person, how come there are so many people starving in this world?
Deliberate human planning.

floo

  • Guest
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #97 on: July 30, 2016, 08:31:29 AM »

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33072
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #98 on: July 30, 2016, 08:36:03 AM »
Ehhhhhhhhh?
People starve because people let them or as deliberate policy.......or do you really believe it's God?

« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 08:39:26 AM by Vlad and his ilk. »

floo

  • Guest
Re: Romans 16
« Reply #99 on: July 30, 2016, 08:40:09 AM »
People starve because people let them or as deliberate policy.......or do you really believe it's God.

Your only utility to antitheism is your nuisance value.

I don't think the Biblical god exists. However, if it did and could help people in need, but does nothing, or only when in the mood, there would be nothing good about it!