My view: Paul says that someone called James, Peter and John as Pillars. He doesn't like the implication of this label: to honour the three men. And his justification is that no man has to be honoured if not by God.
How could a true follower of Paul honour the man Paul even if he knew that Paul didn't like be called with a onorific title (as even the name himself 'PAUL' seems to mean, as self-invitation to humility ?
It is like if someone who wants be called (and was called) 'Little' is called 'Great' by a his presumed follower: contradiction.
Evidence that 1 Clement is forgery
Re: Evidence that 1 Clement is forgery
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Evidence that 1 Clement is forgery
This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, plain and simple.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:41 am My view: Paul says that someone called James, Peter and John as Pillars. He doesn't like the implication of this label: to honour the three men. And his justification is that no man has to be honoured if not by God.
How could a true follower of Paul honour the man Paul even if he knew that Paul didn't like be called with a onorific title (as even the name himself 'PAUL' seems to mean, as self-invitation to humility ?
It is like if someone who wants be called (and was called) 'Little' is called 'Great' by a his presumed follower: contradiction.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Evidence that 1 Clement is forgery
And debating an obvious fallacy is boring. Enjoy your fantasy.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: Evidence that 1 Clement is forgery
...the very thing I had been eager to do all along (Gal 2:10).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.