I am surprised...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But of course, even if he did, you would be claiming that we couldn't dismiss the possibility that he was lying...

Of course we can never entirely dismiss that fact because there is nothing which which to cross reference those texts. The same goes for the narratives of the gospels. We cannot cross reference those either.

However, that he does use other phrases to indicate his bona fides to his Gentile audience but never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος does raise questions.

[tabibito]

If you wish your views to be given any serious consideration, you might do well to avoid the cartoons. It makes you appear rather puerile. Unless of course that is your intent.

You have already demonstrated that aren't going to take seriously anything that I, or any other Christian, might post, and you declare/imply that almost anything that a Christian might have to say is peurile. Given that I respond to your posts, it should be obvious to you that I find your opinion of me to be a matter of profound insignificance.

The very idea that Paul was opposed to passionate sex in marriage amazes most modern, Protestant interpreters.

No more than it would have amazed Paul.

Yet, his exhortation echoes the voices of numerous ancient moralists who advocated sex without passion as an ideal in marriage. An aphorism of Ps.-Phocylides sheds light on the influence of this anti-erotic tradition on Paul: “Do not deliver yourself wholly unto unbridled sensuality towards your wife, for ‘eros’ is not a god, but a passion destructive of all.” Paul expressed the unbridled character of love and the dishonorable loss of self-control that invariably followed with the key philosophical term: passion (πάθος).

When Paul's teaching was read through eyes trained to such philosophies as Stoicism, such misunderstandings are inevitable.

I never wrote that he did but came from the Hellenised world and it is from the Hellenised world that your religion originates.

The religion originated in first century Judaea, not a particularly Hellenised corner of the world, except in a few minority quarters. Paul, by his own account, conformed with the teachings of the Pharisees. That teaching was intransigently opposed to Hellenisation. His own writings show how thoroughly he opposed synchretism, whether from Jew or Gentile.

That is a deflection and of no relevance to the topic.

Your claim:
What a ridiculous comment. Your religion developed in the Hellenised world. and without Hellenism in all its forms [including the Greek language] your religion would never have existed. From where do you imagine the fourth century Church got its ideas to explain the Trinity?

That is an implicit claim that my religion is based on the teachings of the fourth Century church. My response is not a deflection - it addresses the false claim. The teachings of the fourth century church are relevant only to the extent that they can be verified by scripture. A substantial proportion of those teachings are in fact refuted by scripture. Beginning with Kitamori and Moltmann, that claim has gained enough ground to have become a minority but no longer deemed heretical assessment. (it is very recent development though, at a rough estimate not more than fifteen years.)

Really? The religions of dying and resurrected gods? Mithras? Baal? The worship of the ancient Egyptian chthonic deity Osiris predates Paul by over three thousand years.. The initiates of the Osirian mysteries believed that Osris had once died and risen again to life and that by ritual assimilation with the god they too could attain immortal life. Paul's belief that through baptism the Christian neophyte was ritually assimilated to Christ in his death in order to be one with him in his resurrection does share some similarities. While it remains unlikely [although unknown] if Paul may have had any direct experience of such mysteries these were among the numerous religious of the ancient world.

You really believe there is a connection? How quaint. When those correlations are examined, they are found to be not causations. Superficial similarities, but the details are radically different.

The early Christians had to review its policy for fear its members would all die out. However, the emphasis on celibacy and [ideally] virginity as well as the idea that sex was part original sin has deep roots in Christianity. Look at Augustine's volte face after he "found the Lord" and the way Jovinian was berated by his more well-known contemporary. Better still [and if you want a chuckle] read the apocryphal Acts of Peter.

Hans Christian Anderson came up with more believable tales. Celibate monasticism never enjoyed a widespread popularity in the early Churches.
Augustine? Suddenly a fourth/fifth century theologian is relevant to a discussion of what Paul himself wrote and meant? Augustine was one of those who claimed that deeper theological matters could not be resolved on the basis of scripture, and much of his theology was rejected by the Eastern Churches.

Is that all you can offer?

More is not needed.

In II Corinthians 11:2-3 he tells his followers that he regards the Christian church as Christ's "bride" and that like a father or marriage broker who is anxious to preserve a young girl's virginity for her future husband, so he too wishes to keep his converts pure while awaiting the kingdom and their bridegroom. In I Thes 4:5 he tells men that they should ‘possess’ their wives but not in the passion of desire like the Gentiles who do not know God.[μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν]. No mention in that text of the female receiving any enjoyment!

Nor the male come to that - your interpretation of the text is governed by your prejudice. παθει επιθυμιας - lustful passion - in context, is a matter of taking what one wants without regard for anyone else. Paul made the same sort of criticisms with regard to gluttony at love feasts, leaving others to go without. Read those comments with the same sort of preconceptions, and the reader would conclude that Paul was saying that no-one should eat.

It is Hebrew erotic poetry. What else would you expect to find?

I expect to find precisely that which is found. It did come as a shock when I first realised what it was saying, but after a day or so of reflection, it found that it should have been expected on the basis of the New Testament record.

No reference to passion or ardour. Verse 5 is also interesting Set times not to have sex? Or sex at agreed times? Prayer beforehand to ensure that "Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.". Not much opportunity for spontaneous sexual ardour, is there? And of course each gives the other their "debt" of what is owed.

Agreed times to not have sex. Set times for fasting, so to speak, leaves open any other time for eating or not eating according to the person's (or in this case, the couple's) wishes. You read Paul's writing through a lens that won't allow you to see his intent.

Correction a translation by its very nature is an interpretation particularly if the language of the translated text does not have the vocabulary or shade of meaning and nuance of the original.

Interpretation is involved in any communication, whether written or verbal, or simply by signal. There is more difficulty when translations are involved, but a hostile or overly sympathetic reading will guarantee a flawed interpretation even when the writing is in the reader's mother tongue.

[CivilDiscourse]

I find it interesting she won't accept all of those other pieces of evidence cited, but her proxy opinion relies on "reading between the lines."

[tabibito]

I find it interesting she won't accept all of those other pieces of evidence cited, but her proxy opinion relies on "reading between the lines."

Who was it said that he made a point of believing ten impossible things before breakfast?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I find it interesting she won't accept all of those other pieces of evidence cited, but her proxy opinion relies on "reading between the lines."

It is evidence in that it is the texts but whether it is historically veracious is another matter.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Who was it said that he made a point of believing ten impossible things before breakfast?

It was the White Queen in Looking Glass and it was six impossible things before breakfast.

[Bill the Cat]

Do you avoid all abominations written in the bible?

Only the moral ones. You know... the ones Jesus say come from the heart of a person...

[Bill the Cat]

Yet another great Church has reviewed the scriptures and found that Jesus said nothing against gays, then?
That looks like progression ......

Yet another church bowing to the world. Progression toward hell.

[rogue06]

That depends on what you mean by "odd".

I think something along the lines of his thinking that James was the "Teacher of Righteousness" mentioned in some of the Dead Sea scrolls would qualify. And he holds some "interesting" views concerning Paul as well.

? What are you referencing?

Yigael Yadin, who worked at some of the most important sites in the region, including the Qumran Caves, Masada, Hazor, Tel Megiddo, and he was a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, a membre correspondant of the Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres, and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy. And yet when I showed that he directly stated that Jewish slave labor had been used to construct the ramp to deter the rebels from attacking the laborers during its construction, something you refused to accept, you dismissed his expert opinion on the grounds that you claimed, again without providing a source like you demand of others, that he had buried the remains of some bones he found "with full military honours at the foot of the ramp in 1969."

By which I assume you are referring to the short overview of the Middle East edited by Robert C DiPrizio and which is recommended as an introduction for students.

The same military historian you sought to handwave off as not being an expert in ancient military because he is in the military. You just assumed that because he teaches at a military college that he only knew about modern warfare. And when you discovered that was not true you fell back to dismissing his expert opinion on the basis that his book only consisted of a single volume.

From that ludicrous statement you clearly hold the opinion that one article of a mere few hundred words by a non-specialist adequately and sufficiently "covers the Roman Jewish wars". No doubt in the same way that you consider a present day Rome City Tour Guide website adequately addresses the issue of Jewish slaves in Rome following the First Jewish War and your contention [from that site] that those prisoners built the Arch of Titus.

I figured that you would yet again be reduced to your typical tactic of deliberate and dishonest misrepresentation since it has been your go-to reaction wrt this topic.

As I've repeatedly noted, including in the original thread, I provided sources like that to demonstrate how universally accepted my view was, not to use it as some sort of scholarly source. But you continue in your typical duplicitous manner to dishonestly pretend otherwise. You ignore the actual scholars that I lined up to refute your view and then focus on the sources I also listed to demonstrate how matter-of-factly the position I was espousing is viewed. This sort behavior is typical of your modus operandi.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, it should be noted that official tour guides are licensed and heavily scrutinized by the government to ensure that they are conveying accurate information. If they were publishing false information then Roman officials would have called them out on it. The fact they didn't should at least suggest that just like the Coliseum in Rome, it was built with the assistance of Jewish slave labor. So this isn't some kid who you can pick up off the street to lead you around for a few bucks like you wish to give the impression that it is.

Moreover, this is all hilarious coming from Miss "with regard to the discipline of history I know a great more than most of the contributors to these boards" who cites Trajan's Column, built by the Romans after the war with the Dacians in present day Romania as evidence that 40 some years earlier the Romans at Masada in present day Israel didn't employ slave labor to help construct the ramp they used to overrun the fort -- something that I supported by citing numerous archaeologists and historians as confirming was the case.

OTOH, you pretty much just stuck with saying the equivalent of "nuh-uh" because you know better.

Btw, here is yet another historian for you to summarily dismiss, who wrote several books on Jewish history, Max Dimot, in what was likely meant as a work meant for general audiences, wrote about the use of Jewish slaves in the construction of the ramp that the Romans built in order to take Masada:

Source: The Amazing Adventures of the Jewish People

Titus, now emperor, sent Flavius Silva, his best general, with four thousand legionnaires to take this rock and put an end to Jewish resistance. Repulsed time and again, Silva resorted to using Jewish slave-labor battalions to build a ramp of earth from the desert floor to the top of the fortress.

© Copyright Original Source

That would be on page 47 since I'm sure you'll ask.

[Bill the Cat]

It shows tolerance and an all-embracing faith, something I find is often lacking in some Christians and indeed denominations.

Of course anything that is remotely liberal is ipso facto "of the devil" for some!

Intolerance of practicing sin should be the hallmark of a church. I hope you find tolerance for sin lacking in Christians.

[Bill the Cat]

Agreed.
Millions of Christians are now discarding Old Testament Laws, rather than picking and choosing to fit with their self-righteousness and/or hypocrisy.

Millions of "christians" are discarding the teachings of the historical church in favor of worldly "tolerance" and have no intention of teaching or practicing repentance.

Many of the remainder can hold hands with such as the Taliban over such issues, maybe? After all, Islam focuses on OT Law as well, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. It makes a mockery of the New Testament and bastardizes the Old.

[rogue06]

I find it interesting she won't accept all of those other pieces of evidence cited, but her proxy opinion relies on "reading between the lines."

The preferred method of scholars

[Cow Poke]

It was the White Queen in Looking Glass and it was six impossible things before breakfast.

Are you about ready to close this thread, too?

[Cow Poke]

It shows tolerance and an all-embracing faith, something I find is often lacking in some Christians and indeed denominations.

Should a church embrace and tolerate child molestation? Incest? Rape?

[tabibito]

Are you about ready to close this thread, too?

At what time did you post that question?