As a member of the Sanhedrin...

[visionary]

Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, but didn't they have to be married? It is apparent from Paul's epistles that he preferred a state of celibacy, but he does not tell us that he was a eunuch nor married.

 

[nick garai]

It was customary for Jewish leaders to be married. Paul for reasons that only G-d knows remained celibate. Maybe he wasn't a very good looking man? He may have been so devoted to legalism that no woman wanted to marry him. He was advancing in his studies of Judaism exceeding his contemporaries.

 

[Steve Petersen]

If Paul got to cast a vote on the stoning of Stephen, he may have been on the Sanhedrin. IIRC, you had to be married to be on the Sanhedrin.

 

[visionary]

Maybe Paul was a widower.

 

[Avodat]

Maybe Paul was a widow.

I don't think he was a woman. He may sound like a mother-in-law at times but he was certainly a man.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, but didn't they have to be married? It is apparent from Paul's epistles that he preferred a state of celibacy, but he does not tell us that he was a eunuch nor married.

Some say Paul was indeed married:

Eusebius
Around 325 A.D., Eusebius wrote The History of the Church , in which he quotes Clement of Alexandria, who wrote Miscellanies around 200 A.D. With the intent to “rebut those who deprecated marriage”, Eusebius quotes Clement as writing:

“Or will they condemn even the apostles? For Peter and Philip had families, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage, while Paul himself does not hesitate in one of his epistles to address his yokefellow (wife), whom he did not take round with him for fear of hindering his ministry.”3
Information About God - Was Paul the Apostle Married?​

 

[visionary]

Some say Paul was indeed married:

Eusebius
Around 325 A.D., Eusebius wrote The History of the Church , in which he quotes Clement of Alexandria, who wrote Miscellanies around 200 A.D. With the intent to “rebut those who deprecated marriage”, Eusebius quotes Clement as writing:

“Or will they condemn even the apostles? For Peter and Philip had families, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage, while Paul himself does not hesitate in one of his epistles to address his yokefellow (wife), whom he did not take round with him for fear of hindering his ministry.”3
Information About God - Was Paul the Apostle Married?​

I wouldn't want to be called "yokefellow" ... EEEEwwww

 

[visionary]

I Timothy 3:1,2 says, "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach."

Is this from the ideology of the day, that good religious leaders are married? thus Pharisee, Sadducee, and Sanhedrin were married men.

 

[visionary]

I Corinthians 7:1-9 seems to be saying that Paul never was married (that it was his "gift" that he never had that strong desire), but the passage does allow for him to have been widowed, if that was indeed the case.

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

 

[Lulav]

1 Cor 9
1 Am I not an apostle?
Am I not free?
Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?
Are you not my work in the Lord?
2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you.
For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

3 My defense to those who examine me is this:
4 Do we have no right to eat and drink?
5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?

 

[visionary]

1 Cor 9
1 Am I not an apostle?
Am I not free?
Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?
Are you not my work in the Lord?
2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you.
For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

3 My defense to those who examine me is this:
4 Do we have no right to eat and drink?
5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?

Is this a hint that he does take his wife with him?

 

[Lulav]

Since he uses 'we' it is inconclusive, Barnabas could have been the one married. But I doubt even if he wasn't using 'we' and only speaking of himself it is only a rant at the Corinthinans at something they dared accused him of, seeing as how he says:

3 My defense to those who examine me is this:

He is being accused of something, and this happens a lot with him. This is him being sarcastic, snarky, and self righteous.

 

[ContraMundum]

Vis....why do you think Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, and are you absoltuely sure of it? (Acts 26:9,10 maybe?)

 

[ContraMundum]

This is him being sarcastic, snarky, and self righteous.

How did you get all of that out of a verse that most of the planet reads as merely defending or giving account for himself?

 

[Lulav]

How did you get all of that out of a verse that most of the planet reads as merely defending or giving account for himself?

Hm, try this, put these words in Moses mouth

1 Am I not an apostle?
Am I not free?
Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? (G-d Almighty)
Are you not my work in the Lord?
2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you.
For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

Doesn't work, does it? Paul would never be compared to Moses, considered to be a most humble man.

In fact Moses came up against something very similar didn't he?

Korah lead the rebellion against Moses and Aaron. He asked him why he thought he should be over the people, but when Moses heard this he didn't reply as Paul does above, instead he fell on his face. He then left it up for G-d to show them whom he had chose, Aaron the High Priest, He even told then to separate themselves from the others so he could destroy everyone but His chosen of Moses and Aaron , but again Moses, not caring about himself but others, intercedes again and only those who joined Korach were destroyed. This is rebellion against G-d but it is not for man to defend himself, but G-d alone. Moses did not defend his choosing by the L-RD but allowed the L-RD to show the others that it was his choosing of Moses and Aaron.

If Paul were of this category, and in Acts we are told of all his miracles and wonders, then why didn't he humble himself and allow the L-RD to show them that he was chosen as he proclaimed?

Am I not an apostle?
Am I not free?
Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?
Are you not my work in the Lord?


How can you not see this as bragging, self defense , pride, etc?

Moses could have said all that.

He was an Apostle
He was free and not a slave as they were and he took them to freedom
He had seen the L-RD G-d Almighty
And they were his job to lead and to teach and to guard, many times more than Paul had, yet he never bragged like this.

 

[visionary]

Vis....why do you think Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, and are you absoltuely sure of it? (Acts 26:9,10 maybe?)

He was the Sanhedrin lyinch man... so either he was or was a wanna be.

 

[Lulav]

Some believe that he was working for the High Priest, but not under Sanhedrin authority.

 

[ContraMundum]

He was the Sanhedrin lyinch man... so either he was or was a wanna be.

OK. I don't think he was a member of the Sanhedrin. Not any clear testimony of it. So, yeah, he could be single.

 

[ContraMundum]

How can you not see this as bragging, self defense , pride, etc?

I just don't see it. He's just giving account. Sarcasm and all that? Nope. I think you just have Paul-hatred glasses.

Moses could have said all that.

If I was as cynical with Moses as you are with Paul- we could say that when he claimed God told him to commit men, women and children to death he was really just establishing his own political position, and the same could go with the death penalties he dished out for things like picking up sticks etc. I could say a lot of very very negative things about Moses (could even question his existence!) and completely deconsruct, demolish and demythologize the writings "attributed to him". Moses would be a monster compared to Paul. He even smashed God's word to pieces. Check Num. 31:13-18, Ex 32:26-28 for clear examples. That's atrocity in my books.

Moses used violence to get his way with God's people (by God's orders- or?). Paul didn't. He used strong words on occassion.

But I have faith. I give Moses the benefit of the doubt. I accept the awful things Moses did as somehow part of God's plan.

Lul, a cynic could put Paul, Moses and God all on trial (and they have!). God would come out the worst, then Moses....Paul wouldn't even be called all that bad.

You have faith in God and Moses excusing the worst attributed to them.....and yet little old Paul...you don't?

 

[Lulav]

I just don't see it. He's just giving account. Sarcasm and all that? Nope. I think you just have Paul-hatred glasses.

If I was as cynical with Moses as you are with Paul- we could say that when he claimed God told him to commit men, women and children to death he was really just establishing his own political position, and the same could go with the death penalties he dished out for things like picking up sticks etc. I could say a lot of very very negative things about Moses (could even question his existence!) and completely deconsruct, demolish and demythologize the writings "attributed to him". Moses would be a monster compared to Paul. He even smashed God's word to pieces. Check Num. 31:13-18, Ex 32:26-28 for clear examples. That's atrocity in my books.

Moses used violence to get his way with God's people (by God's orders- or?). Paul didn't. He used strong words on occassion.

But I have faith. I give Moses the benefit of the doubt. I accept the awful things Moses did as somehow part of God's plan.

Lul, a cynic could put Paul, Moses and God all on trial (and they have!). God would come out the worst, then Moses....Paul wouldn't even be called all that bad.

You have faith in God and Moses excusing the worst attributed to them.....and yet little old Paul...you don't?

First bashing now hating? How can I possibly hate someone I don't even know? And FWIW I don't hate anyone, that is not what we are to do.

Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

And St Augustine said to love mankind and hate sin.

As far as how I feel about Paul I feel about him the way the L-RD told me to, if you want to fault me for that, then do so.

It is a shame that you don't understand why G-d had to do what he did. The cleansing of the land was just a smaller scale but of the same purpose as the flood. What G-d did and what he ordered was righteous, but I'm sad to say what Paul did was not.

You must remember what he said through Isaiah

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

And I guess I'm not a cynic because my order would be

G-d - righteous
Moses - righteous
Paul - If you believe in purgatory start praying!