Paul and Epimenides

Originally posted by checkbaiter
When Paul calls him a prophet of their own, he only intimates that he was, by the Cretans, reputed a prophet.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]EDIT: You didn't tell me what you think about my last post in the Hadith thread. I think you are busy !!!

Actually, I printed it out and saved it, so I can work on it later. I also thought that I have to do some of my own research—rather than make you do all of it for me! 😉 It might be awhile, but I haven’t forgotten it.[/b]

Originally posted by Nemesio
This interpretation is unsupported by the text, of course. I know it's inconvenient for Christians to
believe that pagans could have been regarded as prophets (that God could be present in the godless),
but I'm unsurprised by it.

Do you really believe that all Cretans in the first century were liars, vicious brutes, and lazy gluttons? Does such a hate ...[text shortened]... the author of this text (not St Paul, btw) really reflect
a God-centered attitude?

Nemesio

Originally posted by vistesd
Thanks for that.

But it still overlooks the question. (My commentaries here are much shorter, but they also seem to assume that neither Epimenides nor Paul saw the irony in the statement.)

Paul apparently has a low opinion of the Cretans (based on his experience there?), and quotes Epimenides favorably. Now, let’s just assume that Paul did see ...[text shortened]... ose of us (including the scholars!) who learned to read these texts in strictly deadpan fashion?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Hilarious. I never knew that came from the Bible.

I didn't get where this supposed "contradiction" is.

1.) In the Old Testament there were plenty of false prophets which were called prophets.

2.) Even true prophets of God could behave badly - See Balaam

3.) " ... a prophet of their own" I assume means a self styled false prophet of the Cretans

4.) Paul said that these men were speaking things which they ought not to speak. And he gives an example of this Cretan "prophet" speaking things which he ought not speak.

Where is the contradiction?

Paul writes:

"For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision. (Titus 1:10)

Whose mouths must be stopped, who overthrow whole households, teaching things for the sake of base gain, which they ought not to do. (1:11)

One from among them themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. (1:12)

This testimony is true; for which cause reprove them severely that they may be healthy in the faith, (1:13)

Not paying attention to Jewish myths and the commandments of men who turn away from the truth." (1:14)

Originally posted by vistesd
There have been many arguments on here about contradictions in the Biblical texts. The following does not exactly fall under that heading (nor is it fraught with any heavy theological considerations), but struck me as interesting when I came across a reference to it.

__________________________________

[b]It was one of them, their very own prophe _________________________

Did Paul get it? Or not?



(In context, I would say: not.)[/b]

Still studying it.

Did Paul get it? Or not?



(In context, I would say: not.)

Originally posted by jaywill
I didn't get where this supposed "contradiction" is.

1.) In the Old Testament there were plenty of false prophets which were called prophets.

2.) Even true prophets of God could behave badly - See Balaam

3.) [b]" ... a prophet of their own" I assume means a self styled false prophet of the Cretans

4.) Paul said that these men were ...[text shortened]... tan "prophet" speaking things which he ought not speak.

Where is the contradiction?[/b]

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Unequivocally, the irony would not have been lost on Paul; his place in human history as a member of the Elite Genius Club is assured and unquestioned. That being said, Paul was not here illustrating paradox or irony. Rather, he was engaged in teaching doctrine as it relates to church organization, and more specifically, the moral and doctrinal qualific ...[text shortened]... d characterization? Sure, but an accepted reputation, nonetheless... even by their own people.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Unequivocally, the irony would not have been lost on Paul; his place in human history as a member of the Elite Genius Club is assured and unquestioned.

What made me explore a second take on it in my reply to CB.

That being said, Paul was not here illustrating paradox or irony.

Agreed. But the question is: (a) Did he note the paradox ...[text shortened]... the strong, generalized characterization of Cretans always lying with a bit of tongue-in-cheek.)[/b]

Why aren't people offended on behalf of the Cretans, here? What if someone said:

All black people are criminals. Or all Puerto Ricans are lazy.

Even if the person doesn't really mean all, it's still a pretty obnoxious thing. Do you people
here really, really think that most Cretans in the 1st century were liars, brutes and gluttons?

Does this not strike you as a bit racist to make such a sweeping statement? Do you really think that
the Holy Spirit moved the author (not St Paul!) to say this hateful thing?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio

Does this not strike you as a bit racist to make such a sweeping statement?