LittleLes Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 A large portion of the New Testament is devoted to Paul's teachings and activities. Lets take a look at what Paul claimed to be and his basic philosophy. Paul claimed to be: (1) A Jew (2) A Pharisee and the son of Pharisees (3) Born and raised in Tarsis in Cilicia (4) A Roman citizen (5) Educated by the famous Jewish Rabbi Gamaliel I (Jerusalem 25-50 A.D.) (6) A persecutor of "the Way to death." (Early Christians). (7) Damascus conversion vision (8) An apostle Any problem with these claims? LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Nope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 17, 2005 Author Share Posted May 17, 2005 [quote name='Myles' date='May 17 2005, 05:48 AM'] Nope [/quote] OK Myles and all, But lets look at a conflict here already: Paul claims to have studied under Rabbi Gamaliel I who taught in Jerusalem from 25 to 50 A.D. and was also a Pharisee in the Sanhedren. (1) But that would mean that Paul was in Jerusalem about that time and logically would have knowledge of Jesus' teachings or quite possibly have seen him. (2) There is no evidence that the Pharisees treated the early Christians as other than a sect within Jerusalem. As Gamaliel taught (see Acts 5:38-39): But a Pharisee in the Sanhedrin named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up, ordered the men to be put outside for a short time, 35 and said to them, "Fellow Israelites, be careful what you are about to do to these men. 36 7 Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be someone important, and about four hundred men joined him, but he was killed, and all those who were loyal to him were disbanded and came to nothing. 37 After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census. He also drew people after him, but he too perished and all who were loyal to him were scattered. 38 So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. 39 But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God." They were persuaded by him. But Paul claims that, notwithstanding this teaching, he, a Pharisee, persecuted members of the Way! LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 If memory serves Paul claims to have begun his pharisaic training in his youth and completed it under Gamaliel. Given also that Jesus would not have been alive after between 29-33AD it doesnt neccessarily follow that Paul would've known him. Moreover, why would Paul lie about killing Christians to Christians its not exactly the best way to ingratiate yourself to your new buddies is it? And just because the teacher teaches something doesnt mean the student has to follow it. Look at Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi :saber: Also why would Luke include the material only 4 chapters before telling us that Saul was 'breathing murder' against the Christians if he didnt want it there? It goes against the narrative portrait of the story. Although if Gamaliel was Saul's teacher it would explain the favourable portrait of him we recieve from Luke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 17, 2005 Author Share Posted May 17, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Myles' date='May 17 2005, 09:41 AM'] If memory serves Paul claims to have begun his pharisaic training in his youth and completed it under Gamaliel. Given also that Jesus would not have been alive after between 29-33AD it doesnt neccessarily follow that Paul would've known him. Moreover, why would Paul lie about killing Christians to Christians its not exactly the best way to ingratiate yourself to your new buddies is it? And just because the teacher teaches something doesnt mean the student has to follow it. Look at Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi :saber: Also why would Luke include the material only 4 chapters before telling us that Saul was 'breathing murder' against the Christians if he didnt want it there? It goes against the narrative portrait of the story. Although if Gamaliel was Saul's teacher it would explain the favourable portrait of him we recieve from Luke. [/quote] Hi Myles, Your analysis is quite correct but lets see where it is leading. There were four Jewish sects within orthodox Judaism at the time: Pharisees, Sadduces, Essenes, and Zealots. The early Christians, called followers of "The Way" or "Nazarenes," were a new added sect. The Sadducees, who controlled the Temple, held temporal authority under Roman oversight. These included the chief priest, appointed by the Romans, and the Temple leadership. Being the minority, they zealously guarded their positions and could be expected not to be too tolerant of anything that they thought might threaten their privileged positions. Remember, Paul claimed to be a Roman citizen , which might endear him to the Sadduces, but would not be entirely popular with the Pharisees. Note that he goes to the chief priest and obtains a letter authorizing him to seize members of "The Way" in Damascus. (It should be pointed out that the chief priest at this point had no authority over the synogues in Damascus). A devout Pharisee would not be expected to enter into such an alliance with the Sadducees, the Romans' representtives in Jerusalem. But Paul does. Is it possible that he is not really a Pharisee after all? When exactly did Paul claim to be a Pharisee? See Acts 23:6-8. Paul is on trial before the Sanhedrien composed of Pharisees and Sadduces. Paul claims that he is in fact a Pharisee and believes in the resurrection of the body. (The Pharisees held this; the Sadduces denied it). The effect was predictable! The Pharisees switch to his side and find him innocent. Good move, Paul! Edited May 17, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Just curous...where are you headed with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 [quote name='Paphnutius' date='May 17 2005, 11:33 AM'] Just curous...where are you headed with this? [/quote] Littleles being predictable as he is, this is going to be yet another weak and fallacious attempt to "debunk" Christianity (presumably this time by defaming St. Paul and calling him a fraud or such). And once again, Littleles' charges will be proven to have no merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel's angel Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 I don't get it when people try and (using Socrates' word) 'debunk' Christianity. Why do they go to the bother of researching so much to try and prove us wrong when they know we are firstly not wrong and secondly, not gonna change our minds. I can't understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 17, 2005 Author Share Posted May 17, 2005 [quote name='Paphnutius' date='May 17 2005, 11:33 AM'] Just curous...where are you headed with this? [/quote] Hi Paphnutius, Patience! Patience! What we are going to establish is that Paul was a Hellenistic Jew and rather predictably held the views of that group. These were not the same as mainline Judaism. In fact, we might evidence some gnostic content of his teachings. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 17, 2005 Author Share Posted May 17, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Noel's angel' date='May 17 2005, 12:40 PM'] I don't get it when people try and (using Socrates' word) 'debunk' Christianity. Why do they go to the bother of researching so much to try and prove us wrong when they know we are firstly not wrong and secondly, not gonna change our minds. I can't understand it. [/quote] The English philosopher, John Stuart Mills, once observed that if all mankind were of one opinion and a single man of another, still they should consider his opinion. First of all, he might be right, but if not they will then have yet one more reason for believing that they are correct! I don't think everyone would argee that all of your beliefs are free from error. Granted, your belief system may not admit of any error, but errors might be evidenced to exist nonetheless. And as far a "not gonna change our minds," recognize that belief lies in the will, not the intellect. I might prove to you that two plus two equals four, but I can't make you accept it. LittleLes Edited May 17, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel's angel Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Paul was not gnostic-it is the way gnostics have interpreted his letters (not even all his letters) to try and find something that isn't there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='May 17 2005, 11:10 AM'] Hi Myles, Your analysis is quite correct but lets see where it is leading. There were four Jewish sects within orthodox Judaism at the time: Pharisees, Sadduces, Essenes, and Zealots. The early Christians, called followers of "The Way" or "Nazarenes," were a new added sect. The Sadducees, who controlled the Temple, held temporal authority under Roman oversight. These included the chief priest, appointed by the Romans, and the Temple leadership. Being the minority, they zealously guarded their positions and could be expected not to be too tolerant of anything that they thought might threaten their privileged positions. Remember, Paul claimed to be a Roman citizen , which might endear him to the Sadduces, but would not be entirely popular with the Pharisees. Note that he goes to the chief priest and obtains a letter authorizing him to seize members of "The Way" in Damascus. (It should be pointed out that the chief priest at this point had no authority over the synogues in Damascus). A devout Pharisee would not be expected to enter into such an alliance with the Sadducees, the Romans' representtives in Jerusalem. But Paul does. Is it possible that he is not really a Pharisee after all? When exactly did Paul claim to be a Pharisee? See Acts 23:6-8. Paul is on trial before the Sanhedrien composed of Pharisees and Sadduces. Paul claims that he is in fact a Pharisee and believes in the resurrection of the body. (The Pharisees held this; the Sadduces denied it). The effect was predictable! The Pharisees switch to his side and find him innocent. Good move, Paul! [/quote] Paul was a Jewish Pharisee who converted to the Christian Faith. This is quite clear in Acts. He also had Roman citizenship. And as Christians, we agree with the Pharisees that there is "resurrection, angel, and spirit." Surprise! Surprise! Must be the sign of some deep, dark conspiracy! Give me a break! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 17, 2005 Author Share Posted May 17, 2005 [quote name='Noel's angel' date='May 17 2005, 01:30 PM'] Paul was not gnostic-it is the way gnostics have interpreted his letters (not even all his letters) to try and find something that isn't there [/quote] Hi Noel's Angel, Please note the difference between my statement, "we might evidence some gnostic contents of his teachings" and your statement, "Paul was not gnostic." Did you ever wonder why Paul insisted on being the apostle to the Gentiles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel's angel Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Because that was the work which God called him to do. The Gospel was to be preached to 'all who are far off'. Peter also recognised this (Cornelius incident) It wasn't up to Paul to insist on preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles-it was what God asked him to do. He always went to the Jews first, then if they rejected the Word, he went to the Gnetiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 [quote name='Paphnutius' date='May 17 2005, 11:33 AM'] Just curious...where are you headed with this? [/quote] He's just havving phun and treyeing to get we dum kathliks lurned and liburatid in thot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now