I am surprised...

[Gondwanaland]

No it can't. Not with a shred of backing. Again, anyone can claim whatever they want. The evidence is only behind one.

therebis evidence behind neither. All of you are just declaring your interpretation as true, and picking out what you want and discarding what you dont.

And when that TRADITION is at odds with the founding group's core beliefs, they are no longer part of the team.

Nope, they're just a different subset that doesn't agree with your interpretation of tradition.

[CivilDiscourse]

[My emphasis]

One would assume that Paul had some cognizance of his own origins.

Yes, your emphasis does highlight that your argument is weak, either way.

Just to combine posts.

Why do you consider the fact that he never used that one particular word to be of any importance. You must think so, because you highlight that fact often.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And what is the importance of that textual fact? That's the question. Why do you find it important that he never said that one specific word? What is the significance?

The inference often is made [even among some scholars] that the evidence with which we are presented in Acts and Paul's authentic letters should be unquestioningly accepted. I disagree with that unquestioning standpoint.

I do question whether Paul was actually from a Jewish background [he might have been] but as I noted in an earlier reply I find it very strange that a Jew [even a renegade] could regard the standard blessings of bread and wine that take place at a Jewish meal and interpret them as as a form of theophagy.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes, your emphasis does highlight that your argument is weak, either way.

Why is my argument weak?

[rogue06]

Yes, your emphasis does highlight that your argument is weak, either way.

Just to combine posts.

Why do you consider the fact that he never used that one particular word to be of any importance. You must think so, because you highlight that fact often.

The other day you asked why this website puts up with H_A. And said partly for the amusement she provides.

Today you got to see that in action. Not too many people out there are willing to argue that Paul wasn't Jewish because he never explicitly and expressly referred to himself as a Jew. smiley dolt.gif

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Why would a Cilician Hebrew call himself a Judaean? Why would an American Jew call himself an Israeli?

Who says he came from Cilicia?

[rogue06]

Who says he came from Cilicia?

Oh goodie! Just when I thought her stupidity on this topic couldn't be milked any further it looks like H_A is going to argue that he's not from that region because he never specifically stated that he came from Cilicia.

[tabibito]

Who says he came from Cilicia?

Luke

Acts 9:11 And the Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying,
Acts 9:30 But when the brethren learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus.
Acts 11:25 And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul;
Acts 21:39 But Paul said, “I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city; and I beg you, allow me to speak to the people.”
Acts 22:3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today.

[Sparko]

Again I am just pointing out textual facts.

You weren't trying to say that the number of times it is mentioned has any significance? It was just a random factoid you popped out?



Paul

had issues with passion of any description, especially sexual. Read his comments to his Corinthian congregation.

What definition of "passion" are you using? You don't seem to know what it means.

It is an interpretation.

No, it is your dumb opinion.

There is no "plain reading of the text". All we have are these texts as they have come down to us. Everything else is interpretation.

Yes there is a plain reading. He is clearly using homosexual sexual acts as an example of people who have rejected God and being left to wallow in their sins and get the punishment they are due. Every translation clearly says the same thing. Only by twisting it and inventing theories based on things unsaid can you even come close to your "interpretation"

[tabibito]

Oh goodie! Just when I thought her stupidity on this topic couldn't be milked any further it looks like H_A is going to argue that he's not from that region because he never specifically stated that he came from Cilicia.

It wouldn't matter if she did: In the ordinary course, Paul would have identified himself as ιουδαιος only if he was Judaean. A Hebrew could be from anywhere (Cyprus, for example).

[Bill the Cat]

there is evidence behind neither. All of you are just declaring your interpretation as true, and picking out what you want and discarding what you don't.

Nope, they're just a different subset that doesn't agree with your interpretation of tradition.

And with that, I'm done. I have neither the time nor the crayons to make you understand orthodoxy.

[CivilDiscourse]

Why is my argument weak?

Take that up with the wikipedia article

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Take that up with the wikipedia article

Ah so you cannot actually address it yourself? Fair enough.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Luke

Acts 9:11 And the Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying,
Acts 9:30 But when the brethren learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus.
Acts 11:25 And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul;
Acts 21:39 But Paul said, “I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city; and I beg you, allow me to speak to the people.”
Acts 22:3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today.

Paul tells us nothing about his origins. Those words are put into his mouth by the author of Luke/Acts/. You of course read this text and assume every narrative details is historically veracious. I do not.

[Gondwanaland]

And with that, I'm done. I have neither the time nor the crayons to make you understand orthodoxy.

I very much understand "orthodoxy". The assertion of orthodoxy is purely subjective, just as the claim of "heretic" is.