storytime

What then was Paul?

Paul claimed himself as being in the sect called Pharisees, being educated in that doctrine which Jesus declared "ye teach for doctrine the commandments of men".

"Of the devil" means liars, according to Jesus.

Paul took his gospel to the Gentiles. Did Paul lie? I think he did, according to contradictions he made concerning how the Jewish people were to uphold their religious commandments of excluding uncircumcised and lawless people who were never given anything.

What is your analysis between what Jesus said and what Paul preached?

Clivedurdle

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=275936

I see this alleged statement of a made up new Joshua as political propaganda by one judaic sect against another. Judean People' Front stuff.

There had been a civil war about what is Judaism!

rhutchin

Prior to that experience he had on the road to Damascus, Paul had been educated in the Jewish system, had studied to become a Pharisee, and had taught the things that he had learned. Why should we expect any different of him prior to his Damascus road experience?

As Satan is the father of lies, so his children are liars.

Of the Pharisees, Jesus said, "You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44)

After his experience on the road to Damascus, Paul's thinking was changed. He was no longer a Pharisee but began to teach against the Pharisees and their doctrines.

neilgodfrey

Do you ever read the Bible? Paul said he was a Pharisee after his conversion. Acts 23:6:
Then a few verses later we read those supporting the Pharisees saying they could find no evil in Paul.

And at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 we learn that among the believing Christians was a group of Pharisees (verse 5), and that "the whole church" (presumably including these Pharisees) all came around to being persuaded by Peter and James to go along with Paul's views.

ApostateAbe

Paul was a Pharisee sort of in the sense that Paul, Peter, James, John and Jesus were all Jews. They are identities, but Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their beliefs and behaviors. Paul apparently did not have the beliefs and behaviors relevant of a Pharisee.

neilgodfrey

Does this mean that Paul was only being "technically honest" when he said he was a Pharisee, like when Abraham said Sarah was his sister, or when God sent the message to Pharaoh that he only wanted the Israelites for 3 days?

From the passages to which I referred, it seems there were a lot of Pharisees who were just like Paul in the early church. Why did they continue to identify themselves as Pharisees if Jesus had really made it clear to all Jews that being a Pharisee was something to be ashamed of? Presumably they did so identify themselves since the author and other actors in the narrative could all talk about them as Pharisees. Or is the argument more of a case of special pleading to excuse Paul and get around author of Acts quoting him as saying he is a Pharisee?

aa5874

But, the very passage Acts 23.6 actually seems to indicate that Paul was not really a Pharisee.

The Pharisees, it would appear, did not believe in a bodily resurrection like the assumed bodily resurrection of Jesus. It would seem that the Pharisees believed the body was corruptible only the Spirit was immortal.

This is Josephus on the immortality of souls in Wars of the Jews 2.8.14 So even a Pharisee would not accept that Jesus bodily resurrected after three days.

The Pharisees appear to believe that the Spirit of a good man may enter some other person but the spirit of a bad man is punished eternally.

Acts of the Apostles does not appear to be credible.

Chili

Not sure about that as he called himself an [arrogant religious] tax collector which even worse than a Pharisee and that is exactly what knocked him off of 'high horse' on the way to Damascus. It is no secret that born againers willl boast about their sin nature after they have seen the light and Paul was no different. Jesus aka Joseph in his blissful anger went to raise hell from the precinct because he had promised himself never to enter the place again (and James would never know the difference).

neilgodfrey

But rhutchin does not believe that and it was to r and likeminded biblical inerrantists that my comments were directed. I know of no reason to take the Acts narratives of Paul and Peter as serious history.

rhutchin

Guess Paul had not been excommunicated yet. Once a Pharisee; always a Pharisee. Nonetheless, Paul was teaching a theology that he did not learn in Pharisee school nor which, I suspect, the Pharisees had yet to incorporate into their official teachings. The Pharisees must have been quite liberal and tolerant of many religious views.