- Mar 27, 2007
- 36,235
- 4,716
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Paul is a Pharisee.
Saul was, Paul was not.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Paul is a Pharisee.
This is written by Paul's friend and associate, Luke.
Acts 23:6: "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee ..."Saul was, Paul was not.
Acts 23:6: "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee ..."
Virtually all the English translations has Paul stating "I am a Pharisee". As you know, "am" is εἰμι (a verb in the present indicative) in the Greek. The Greek present tense, when used in the indicative mood, shows a continuous action that is going on in the present time. Paul was stating "I am and continue to be a Pharisee".
This admission was made well into the period of his "Christian ministry".
What, then, do you do with Messiah's statement: "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees ... Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." (Mt 16:6,12)Yep. Paul was a Pharisee ... All the more reason to have a listen as far as I can tell.![]()
Acts 23:6: "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee ..."
Virtually all the English translations has Paul stating "I am a Pharisee". As you know, "am" is εἰμι (a verb in the present indicative) in the Greek. The Greek present tense, when used in the indicative mood, shows a continuous action that is going on in the present time. Paul was stating "I am and continue to be a Pharisee".
This admission was made well into the period of his "Christian ministry".
His motivations as to why he stated "I am a Pharisee" is not in question here.Paul explained his statement in 1 Cor. 9.
19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under [h]the Law, as under [i]the Law though not being myself under [j]the Law, so that I might win those who are under [k]the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
The Pharisees are under the law so Paul became one so that he might win them for Christ.
His motivations as to why he stated "I am a Pharisee" is not in question here.
The fact he made that statement, is.
I disagree. I don't see that I twisted his statement at all in Acts 23 - I'm taking it very straightforwardly.Your twisting of the statement is what is in question here not that Paul said it. The "why" is essential.
I disagree. I don't see that I twisted his statement at all in Acts 23 - I'm taking it very straightforwardly.
The simple fact that he made the statement shows that he admits that he is a Pharisee.
How does 1Cor 9 modify that?
So, in conclusion, you are saying Paul lied about being a Pharisee?The reason why Paul made the statement clarifies the statement. Since Paul is NOT under the law and since the Pharisees ARE under the law then Paul's statement of being a Pharisee serves the purpose that he stated in 1 Cor. 9 and rules out him being a Pharisee in the sense that you are suggesting.
So, in conclusion, you are saying Paul lied about being a Pharisee?
Not according to the Gospel of John.Oh, Your post kind of confused me because i did not know where you were going with it at first. I believe that' that particular person i spoke of in the first post and the ministry the person linked me to has stated basically that. "We view what Paul taught over what Jesus taught too much and what Paul taught was not 100% accurate in it's current translation and also that Jesus followed the ten commandments and that we are to walk as Jesus did as said in 1 John 2:6 and that there is no new law."
Either he lied, or he didn't lie about being a Pharisee. Which is it?
Yes that was Paul's old belief system. Paul is also a Christian.Paul is a Pharisee.
Now you wish to discredit Peter too. There doesn't seem to be much of the Bible you accept.Is Peter infallible?
Yes that was Paul's old belief system. Paul is also a Christian.
"haters?"Can't we say the same about "Joseph Smith haters" or "Ellen White haters"?
What, then, do you do with Messiah's statement: "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees ... Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." (Mt 16:6,12)