Plus, whether or not one is a scotsman is an easily definable thing.
I’m not satisfied with a definition of “one who professes to follow christ,” as a definition for christian for the reasons you show in Matthew.
Billions and billions of galaxies, planets and endless space . there are wars going on and kids dying . But god ignored those things to flip a page over for you.
Makes perfect sense to me.
To a point neither am I. Though I believe Jesus showed ‘the way’ which was to live by love. Paul, in his purification from OT law and temple system to living by Love founded Christianity, which is a mix of law, temple and love. Paul was the one who came up with the term Christian, before that it was known as ‘the way’.
We are assuming a God who can multitask. Who says he ignores those things anyway?
I’m thinking you don’t know what this fallacy actually is. It has nothing to do with real Scottish people. It’s about people redefining the topics they are discussing so they can leave out things that contradict their argument.
Somwhat agree, but I am sufficiently curious over whether Paul came up with the title or not to ask you where you got that from.
Wasn’t it in Acts that there’s a verse that says they were first called Christians in Antioch? Which would make Luke the first (on record) to use the term? Or was it Paul’s writings that said that? I sure thought that was in Acts.
Praise be, whoever it is they, er, we, praise.
it’s awfully similar to moving the goalposts. But without first agreeing on the definition of christianity, this becomes a common misconception, that someone has moved the goalpost on you because you defined christian in a way that they didn’t.
The No True Scotsman fallacy took its name from an argument characterizing the fallacy in terms of what is a scotsman or not. If one says, “All Scotsmen like Haggis,” and a listener replies, “My uncle was born and raised and lives to this day in Edinburgh and he hates haggis,” and the original speaker then says, “Then he is no true Scotsman,” we have the fallacy, because an inherent love of Haggis is not what makes a scotsman, and the speaker proves himself correct by changing his original statement to redefine what makes a Scotsman.
My point is that there is no commonly understood definition of christian and that makes it not appropriate to use a No True Scotsman argument when someone argues about the acts of christians. Being a christian, as far as anyone can tell of another man, is precisely about how one acts.
Jah.
Part of it came from a very interesting set of verses in one of Paul’s letters that I believe shows the split between the flesh of Paul and the Spirit of God at war with each other
[QUOTE=1 Cor 7 ]
10x To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord):
12x To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):
[/QUOTE]
Here in verse 12, where the Lord actually said I don’t stand with Paul on this, this is not Me. Likewise Verse 10 is the Lord with Paul saying it’s not Paul.
So the Lord and Paul did not stand together on this.
Paul also talks about the war inside him, saying/doing things he doesn’t want to do and the other way around. There was a large war inside Paul. When Paul speaks of being a prisoner of Lord Jesus, I believe that was when Jesus was able to confine the flesh of Paul, greatly limiting it’s ability. This ends with the death of Paul in Rome and the eternal life of Jesus inside Paul as I have taken Paul’s letters.
It shows to what length God will go to save someone, and how we must share each others burdens. Paul I believe was so steeped in Jewish OT law that even today, what we considered Christianity is us bearing some of Paul’s burden 2000 years later.
The reference to No True Scotsmen was about whether an act can be attributed to God, not whether a person is a Christian or not:
And I think that last post took it to a third level.
At this point I am confused as to what you meant by “No true Scotsman of No True Scotsman.”
Doesn’t seem to address whther Paul or Luke is the first on record using the term Christian, which is what I was asking about, and not Paul’s other views or what Yah did for Paul.
If someone behaves consistent with scriptural principles and gives credit to Yah, I would call that person a legitimate christian (or jew), and say it is possible that he acted on the command of Yah. If a person does not behave consistently with the same principles, and credits Yah for his sin, I am going to say one of two things–he’s not a christian or he is deluded as to where his command came from. If he is repentant of his sin afterwards, then I would agree he is still a legitimate christian.
This is not a No True Scotsman; I never changed the definition to prove myself right.
We’d have to have a “all persons who claim to act under direct commands of Yah” definition of christian for the No True Scotsman fallacy to arise when we then claim that someone who claims to act under the direct command of Yah is not a christian.
Yeah?
From Acts 11:
26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Saul is Paul, so it was the place with Paul’s teachings that they were first called Christians.
Right, but that doesn’t mean Paul coined it, and its not clear whether the Antioch christians called themselves that or someone else did.
Meaning Jah is who the Rastafarians praise.
No it doesn’t, but the term itself it doesn’t have to be through Paul, what I believe is the religion Christianity came from a combining of the Lord and the flesh of Paul, which would be through the teachings of Paul and the place where that occurred.
This goes back to the OP, the term came from God, through someone, Paul, Peter, Luke, Bubba, Mary-Sue. I don’t know, but does it matter who the term came through.
I think this new term at a time after Jesus’ accession has the question why now attached to it.
I know. Kinda a jah/yeah thing. 
ETA: We Jammin!