I am surprised...

[CivilDiscourse]

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

You are making a point about something because it isn't mentioned. The wikipedia article mentions that this is considered a weak argument. Take it up with them.

[tabibito]

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.

You are far too predictable. Your response as to type was anticipated
Here and here

[Sparko]

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.

So basically even if Paul did write it in one of his letters you would still use this same argument to claim he really didn't. Got it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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?

The Hebrew texts have more verses dealing with dietary codes and laws than they do on homosexuality. Again, textual fact.

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

επιθυμία [desire] is one of the four major types of passion, along with grief, fear, and pleasure [and sometimes anger]. Desire was unnatural. The philosophical ideas of the Stoics viewed all desires and passions, including sexual desire as irrational and unnatural, and held the view that a strong minded person could, and should, eliminate sexual desire along with all the other passions. The individual who was able to eliminate all desires and for whom happiness was not dependent upon those things that others wished or strove for, would find complete freedom.

We don't know if Paul thought sex was a sin in and of itself. He doesn’t tell us. What he does tell us is that he condemns all passion and particularly sexual passion and that he views virginity and chastity as the ideal. However, for those unable to meet those lofty requirements and who have difficulty in controlling themselves, then marriage is the preferable choice.

What we also know is that by the late second century CE, Apologists like Justin Martyr and ECFs like Clement of Alexandria were making statements that Christians only marry to beget children and that if men marry to have children they should have no sexual desire for their wives. And by the fourth century St Jerome was making it clear that he viewed marriage with utter contempt.

We also have, within the Christian Apocrypha, writings that regard sex as “the experiment of the serpent” while Revelations 14:4 makes it clear that those who have not ‘"defiled’" themselves with women but have remained virgins follow the Lamb. So this idea of sin and sex has deep roots in Christianity.

Yes there is a plain reading.

No there is not. What you actually by plain reading is the translation and interpretation that you accept to be correct.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So basically even if Paul did write it in one of his letters you would still use this same argument to claim he really didn't. Got it.

If Paul had mentioned his background in one of his authentic letters we could assume it to be correct. However, Paul is remarkably reticent about his origins.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are far too predictable. Your response as to type was anticipated
Here and here

What I wrote is correct. Paul tells nothing about his background. However, many here consider Acts and its narrative details to be veracious and accurate. I do not.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are making a point about something because it isn't mentioned. The wikipedia article mentions that this is considered a weak argument. Take it up with them.

I initially replied to someone who alleged I contended that Paul was a Jew. I have never written any such thing and Paul never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself. That is textual fact.

[tabibito]

What I wrote is correct. Paul tells nothing about his background.

So without Luke's record, we would only have Paul's own record to base an estimate on. And Paul's own words - even by your own assessment - would indicate that he is probably not from Judea. They would provide his ethnic origins however, because he terms himself a Hebrew and a descendant of Abraham.

However, many here consider Acts and its narrative details to be veracious and accurate. I do not.

If you think that comment reflects anything of dispassionate, or honest, or impartial scholarship, you are profoundly mistaken.


In point of fact, I find it impossible to believe that you believe your own drivel.

[Sparko]

The Hebrew texts have more verses dealing with dietary codes and laws than they do on homosexuality. Again, textual fact.

So what? The word "bible" never appears in the bible. Textual fact.

επιθυμία [desire] is one of the four major types of passion, along with grief, fear, and pleasure [and sometimes anger]. Desire was unnatural. The philosophical ideas of the Stoics viewed all desires and passions, including sexual desire as irrational and unnatural, and held the view that a strong minded person could, and should, eliminate sexual desire along with all the other passions. The individual who was able to eliminate all desires and for whom happiness was not dependent upon those things that others wished or strove for, would find complete freedom.

Paul wasn't a stoic. So another set of useless "facts?"

We don't know if Paul thought sex was a sin in and of itself. He doesn’t tell us. What he does tell us is that he condemns all passion and particularly sexual passion and that he views virginity and chastity as the ideal. However, for those unable to meet those lofty requirements and who have difficulty in controlling themselves, then marriage is the preferable choice.

You have no idea what Paul thought because you never read the bible.

What we also know is that by the late second century CE, Apologists like Justin Martyr and ECFs like Clement of Alexandria were making statements that Christians only marry to beget children and that if men marry to have children they should have no sexual desire for their wives. And by the fourth century St Jerome was making it clear that he viewed marriage with utter contempt.

Again so what? Non-sequitur.

We also have, within the Christian Apocrypha, writings that regard sex as “the experiment of the serpent” while Revelations 14:4 makes it clear that those who have not ‘"defiled’" themselves with women but have remained virgins follow the Lamb. So this idea of sin and sex has deep roots in Christianity.

Another non-sequitur.

No there is not. What you actually by plain reading is the translation and interpretation that you accept to be correct.

Greek isn't some esoteric language that nobody can translate correctly. Biblical Greek is one of the most studied languages ever. And the people who translate Paul's letters into English are top scholars who know what they are doing, unlike an amateur like yourself. So yes, we can trust the translations, especially when we can compare many of them and see how alike they are. And the meaning of the passages in question are clear. The only reason you have difficulty is because you are a homosexual and want to try to twist the passage into saying that what you are doing is not a sin. That's obvious. So, basically even you know that the bible condemns homosexuality as a sin, but your guilty conscience needs to find a way to absolve yourself of your guilt.

[RumTumTugger]

The simple textual fact is that Paul never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself.

This fact appears to rile some of our friends and they have now resorted to the logical fallacy of Argumentum ex silentio.

No Hypatia there was no argument by silence it was folks showing you where you were wrong to in your argument that Paul never referred to himself as a Jew just because he did not use the Greek a certain Greek word. You need to prove he didn't by showing us
1. That all others who referred to themselves as being Jewish in new testament used the Greek word you think is necessary in every instance.
2. Any citations that there can be Pharisees who did not believe in following the Jewish law.

You can't do this by going to the anti Christian sites you appear to be using since they never give you the context of the opinions they make. You need to do your own proper study and look at some ANE biblical study sites and maybe soem christian sites . until you do your own study any time you make bone headed statements like the above you will always be schooled by those who have done the proper study.

[CivilDiscourse]

I initially replied to someone who alleged I contended that Paul was a Jew. I have never written any such thing and Paul never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself. That is textual fact.

So, you are countering that argument, by claiming he never mentioned it. I.E. arguing from silence a fallacious, weak argument.

[Cow Poke]

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

I'm beginning to think that anybody of her caliber who doesn't actually contribute anything useful should tossed out.

[Cow Poke]

What I wrote is correct. Paul tells nothing about his background. However, many here consider Acts and its narrative details to be veracious and accurate. I do not.

wow

[Cow Poke]

[My emphasis]

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

Does anybody here seriously believe she can possibly be this stupid? I think she HAS to be ing just for the sake of ing.

[Cow Poke]

So, you are countering that argument, by claiming he never mentioned it. I.E. arguing from silence a fallacious, weak argument.

bingo